# 165 MILLION Years Old



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2011)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/largestfossilspiderfoundinvolcanicash

That spider is pretty old.


----------



## vowell462 (Apr 20, 2011)

But the earth is only 6000 yrs old and heaven is 15 miles above the sky. Amazing how much can be learned in 100 yrs. Thats an old spider.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2011)

Now that you mention it...........


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 21, 2011)

Carbon dating has its problems..... http://www.essortment.com/carbon-dating-accuracy-flaws-carbon-dating-37183.html

I dont know how old the earth is and really dont care, that spider might be 100,000 years old


----------



## gtparts (Apr 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Carbon dating has its problems..... http://www.essortment.com/carbon-dating-accuracy-flaws-carbon-dating-37183.html
> 
> I dont know how old the earth is and really dont care, that spider might be 100,000 years old



Or the world has just been punked by the Mongolian Joker.

I am still trying to figure out what this has to do with Agnostics, Atheists, or Apologetics.  The connection isn't made in the article or the OP. The article doesn't touch on the spiritual.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Carbon dating has its problems..... http://www.essortment.com/carbon-dating-accuracy-flaws-carbon-dating-37183.html
> 
> I dont know how old the earth is and really dont care, that spider might be 100,000 years old




You could be spot on about the age of that spider which still is 94,000 years older than the Bible says it could be. Thank you.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Or the world has just been punked by the Mongolian Joker.
> 
> 
> 
> I am still trying to figure out what this has to do with Agnostics, Atheists, or Apologetics.  The connection isn't made in the article or the OP. The article doesn't touch on the spiritual.



By that logic one would wonder why you constantly post in the A/A/A forum...... but I'll give my thoughts anyway.
I believe it shows that there are methods to show the existence of species in relation to when the bible says they could have existed. While science is not exact it does show a series of checks and balances to back up what is reported. In this particular case, even if they are off by a few million years, a hundred million years, or 164 million years, it is more proof that the earth and life is much older than is told in scripture.


----------



## VisionCasting (Apr 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> You could be spot on about the age of that spider which still is 94,000 years older than the Bible says it could be. Thank you.



I must have missed that passage *in the Bible*.  Can you source it for us?

Or are you referring to the 'young earth' theory?  I don't know many people of any faith that subscribe to that.


----------



## applejuice (Apr 21, 2011)

God placed those fossils there to test our faith! 

Or it's a fossil of a spider that lived before Jesus bought this planet from Thor when his lease ran out.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> By that logic one would wonder why you constantly post in the A/A/A forum...... but I'll give my thoughts anyway.
> I believe it shows that there are methods to show the existence of species in relation to when the bible says they could have existed. While science is not exact it does show a series of checks and balances to back up what is reported. In this particular case, even if they are off by a few million years, a hundred million years, or 164 million years, it is more proof that the earth and life is much older than is told in scripture.



Boy, I sure am glad accuracy is not an issue for you. Seems your only concern is that the age of the spider fossil exceeds 6 to 8 thousand years by some "comfortable" number. It sure looks more convenient than actually nailing down the facts. 

It does occur to me that if they are off by 165 million years minus about six to eight millennia, the inclusion of this article here serves no useful purpose.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 21, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Or the world has just been punked by the Mongolian Joker.
> 
> I am still trying to figure out what this has to do with Agnostics, Atheists, or Apologetics.  The connection isn't made in the article or the OP. The article doesn't touch on the spiritual.



GT, did you get the PM I sent you?


----------



## gtparts (Apr 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> GT, did you get the PM I sent you?



Yes, I did. Thank you.

gtparts


----------



## formula1 (Apr 21, 2011)

*Re:*

My Bible says ' Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'  I don't see where God said exactly when that was.  I must have missed something.

I can assure you with confidence that if a spider fossil is 165 million years old, God knew it's form intimately and new the count of every hair on it's spindly little legs. And he placed it there to convince men of their folly.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 21, 2011)

formula1 said:


> My Bible says ' Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'  I don't see where God said exactly when that was.  I must have missed something.



This is how some Christians used their magical discerning powers to determine the age of the Earth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth



formula1 said:


> I can assure you with confidence that if a spider fossil is 165 million years old, God knew it's form intimately and new the count of every hair on it's spindly little legs. And he placed it there to convince men of their folly.



I thought God doesn't try to trick people.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Boy, I sure am glad accuracy is not an issue for you. Seems your only concern is that the age of the spider fossil exceeds 6 to 8 thousand years by some "comfortable" number. It sure looks more convenient than actually nailing down the facts.
> 
> It does occur to me that if they are off by 165 million years minus about six to eight millennia, the inclusion of this article here serves no useful purpose.



Oh accuracy is an issue. I trust science telling me it is 165 million years old. As certain as the sun comes up every morning, someone always brings up the inaccuracy of carbon dating( and without fail, DID) so I was eliminating the back and forth between that and just went right to a minimum number that still is much older than what can be traced back through the bible.

What seems to be convenient is how science and it's tangible processes are overlooked in favor of myths and fables.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

formula1 said:


> My Bible says ' Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'  I don't see where God said exactly when that was.  I must have missed something.
> 
> I can assure you with confidence that if a spider fossil is 165 million years old, God knew it's form intimately and new the count of every hair on it's spindly little legs. And he placed it there to convince men of their folly.




I don't see where God actually said or wrote anything. 

Luckily much more evidence is needed than your personal assurance for things in religion and outside of religion to be taken as credible.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> I must have missed that passage *in the Bible*.  Can you source it for us?
> 
> Or are you referring to the 'young earth' theory?  I don't know many people of any faith that subscribe to that.



Have you looked for many people of faith that do not subscribe to that theory? Do a quick search and check the responses from some major players in Christianity.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh accuracy is an issue. I trust science telling me it is 165 million years old. As certain as the sun comes up every morning, someone always brings up the inaccuracy of carbon dating( and without fail, DID) so I was eliminating the back and forth between that and just went right to a minimum number that still is much older than what can be traced back through the bible.
> 
> What seems to be convenient is how science and it's tangible processes are* overlooked in favor of myths and fables.*



Please show me one person on this thread that overlooked something. Please!


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> You could be spot on about the age of that spider which still is 94,000 years older than the Bible says it could be. Thank you.



The bible doesnt say anything about the age of the earth that I am aware of, probably because its a non issue. Does it make you feel good about yourself and beliefs to take some peoples theories and assert them to " what the Bible says" even though the Bible says no such thing?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> *I don't see where God actually said or wrote anything.*
> 
> Luckily much more evidence is needed than your personal assurance for things in religion and outside of religion to be taken as credible.



I know.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

Generally speaking string.... it has been done to death on thread after thread in the A/A/A forum. I did not point a finger at anyone on here for doing it in here.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The bible doesnt say anything about the age of the earth that I am aware of, probably because its a non issue. Does it make you feel good about yourself and beliefs to take some peoples theories and assert them to " what the Bible says" even though the Bible says no such thing?



It actually is the force that drives me to get up in the morning. Trace back through the timeline in the Bible, 6,000 years is the most accepted time that the bible covers. With all the reading between the lines in the bible to come up with every other answer, 6000 years is about right. The bible doesn't say many things that people take the liberty of saying it does. It does not SAY we are all descendants of Noah and his family, but we must be if, according to the bible,everyone else was drowned.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 21, 2011)

Trusting Science is a far greater stretch than trusting the Bible. Science keeps changing its mind.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Trusting Science is a far greater stretch than trusting the Bible. Science keeps changing its mind.



VERY true Ted, science does keep changing it's mind. It does it in order to get it right. Science is not afraid to admit that something is not as it was thought to be, and then explain why. It is progression.

The bible sticks to ancient myths and fables written by people who were not even there and despite having known major flaws it refuses to budge. Probably the main reason why it is losing followers faster than ever.


----------



## GONoob (Apr 21, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Trusting Science is a far greater stretch than trusting the Bible. Science keeps changing its mind.



The bible that has MANY different versions, by many different authors that has gone through many changes, revisions, additions, and deletions to appeal and suit the faithfulness of christians? To me that indicates corruption.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 21, 2011)

GONoob said:


> The bible that has MANY different versions, by many different authors that has gone through many changes, revisions, additions, and deletions to appeal and suit the faithfulness of christians? To me that indicates corruption.



I agree, but that corruption comes from man. Ask and you shall recieve. The truth is the truth is the truth.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> VERY true Ted, science does keep changing it's mind. It does it in order to get it right. Science is not afraid to admit that something is not as it was thought to be, and then explain why. It is progression.
> 
> The bible sticks to ancient myths and fables written by people who were not even there and despite having known major flaws it refuses to budge. Probably the main reason why it is losing followers faster than ever.



Is there a source for this assumption?

Science doesn't change to get it right. It changes because the hypotheses change. Because men make up the hypotheses.

Study the method, and know its limitations.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Is there a source for this assumption?
> 
> Science doesn't change to get it right. It changes because the hypotheses change. Because men make up the hypotheses.
> 
> Study the method, and know its limitations.



Source=Me. THE main reason I am so hard on the Bible is because I have taken the time to read it multiple times. When I talk to people that also have issues with the bible the answer is usually because they expect the work of a higher power to be more exact and the contents inside the bible have too much Man creating god, not the other way around.

Science is always evolving though. 10 scientists may have 10 different hypotheses on WHY something is and usually the one that makes the most sense is accepted. If something better comes along it is able to be looked at and decided on. 2000 year old hand picked scripture by man along with human additions that are long outdated have not changed with the times around them. 5000 years ago a talking donkey or burning bush was some serious special effects, not so much now. Saying that the first 2 people were created early in those early years when we know that is not true is seriously flawed. The book is full of inconsistencies throughout. A book must be as accurate as it's contents, which is as accurate as it's author. I would expect that the bibles contents should be unquestionable and able to withstand all scrutiny if it has come from such a high power. While a good read, it is fiction at best.

I have studied the bible and have found it's limitations.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I agree, but that corruption comes from man. Ask and you shall recieve. The truth is the truth is the truth.



When thought of and written by man it will be corrupt. It is corrupt. If a higher power had anything to do with it, one original version would be readable and understandable and unquestionable to all.


----------



## GONoob (Apr 21, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I agree, but that corruption comes from man. Ask and you shall recieve. The truth is the truth is the truth.



Without the bible, what else do you have? It's all that you know of christianity.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh accuracy is an issue. I trust science telling me it is 165 million years old. As certain as the sun comes up every morning, someone always brings up the inaccuracy of carbon dating( and without fail, DID) so I was eliminating the back and forth between that and just went right to a minimum number that still is much older than what can be traced back through the bible.
> 
> What seems to be convenient is how science and it's tangible processes are overlooked in favor of myths and fables.



My personal take is that both positions are "carved out" by men. Some rely upon an application of science that has not been reliable, has internal problems, and depends on some speculative assumptions. The other side assumes for themselves insights into what was meant by what was given in Scripture. I have no doubt about Scripture. I just have doubts about some of the explanations proffered by those who read them.

Somehow, imho, the things of science that are true and accurate, when fully known, will only confirm Scripture and some of the "Bible scholars" will be surprised to find out how far off they were from the truth of when and  how long it took for everything to be created.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> When thought of and written by man it will be corrupt. It is corrupt. If a higher power had anything to do with it, one original version would be readable and understandable and unquestionable to all.



That would not allow for our limitations. The things that you see as contradictory concerning science are based on looking back to a time when a 21st century explanation would not be understood by even the best and brightest of men. The Bible is NOT a science book, thought it sometimes deals with elements of science. It is a record and progressive revelation of God and His plan. It expresses the principles that lead man to the life and relationship with God and other men that each was intended to have. 

To demand more than that is foolishness. Let someone else write that book. God inspired exactly what He intended to communicate; no more, no less. Understanding all that God intended is a big part of our task on earth, it's our problem. Living according to His will is pretty much the balance of our task.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2011)

gtparts said:


> That would not allow for our limitations. The things that you see as contradictory concerning science are based on looking back to a time when a 21st century explanation would not be understood by even the best and brightest of men. The Bible is NOT a science book, thought it sometimes deals with elements of science. It is a record and progressive revelation of God and His plan. It expresses the principles that lead man to the life and relationship with God and other men that each was intended to have.
> 
> To demand more than that is foolishness. Let someone else write that book. God inspired exactly what He intended to communicate; no more, no less. Understanding all that God intended is a big part of our task on earth, it's our problem. Living according to His will is pretty much the balance of our task.



That's your opinion and it is respectable but it is no more accurate or truthful than anything presented to you from the A/A/A side. As much as you KNOW what God inspired, intended, his plan or what God's Will actually is, I feel the same way about my beliefs. Neither of us KNOW anything for certain, we are just making our best guess with what info is presented to us.

I have a hard time believing that a god could create everything, be capable of everything and be dismissed as working in mysterious ways when even the most faithful think something is a stretch, but god could not create a bible that was understandable in all cultures and languages to everyone all over the world. Man slaps something together in a tiny spot on the earth that clearly has the inconsistencies and faults of humans all throughout it, written in language that only a small percent of the population in that area can even understand, and yet it is passed off as the word of god for everyone on earth.

If the bible( or early scrolls that it came from) were found not only in the middle east but in multiple locations across the planet, and various cultures wrote about it and told of the same tales I would lend it the proper credibility it would deserve. But to pass off that such a superior being that is capable of making it clear for everyone to understand worldwide did not because of mans limitations is a poor excuse and your best guess. Creating such a book CREATES limitations for potential believers, instead of having a universal version that everyone would understand.

Like I said I respect your opinion and your beliefs. But for the very reasons you do not agree with my beliefs, I have the same reasons for not agreeing with yours. You can't speak for God and I can't speak for anyone else, all we can do is say what we believe without knowing any of it is 100% certain.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> That's your opinion and it is respectable but it is no more accurate or truthful than anything presented to you from the A/A/A side. As much as you KNOW what God inspired, intended, his plan or what God's Will actually is, I feel the same way about my beliefs. Neither of us KNOW anything for certain, we are just making our best guess with what info is presented to us.
> 
> I have a hard time believing that a god could create everything, be capable of everything and be dismissed as working in mysterious ways when even the most faithful think something is a stretch, but god could not create a bible that was understandable in all cultures and languages to everyone all over the world. Man slaps something together in a tiny spot on the earth that clearly has the inconsistencies and faults of humans all throughout it, written in language that only a small percent of the population in that area can even understand, and yet it is passed off as the word of god for everyone on earth.
> 
> ...



The Matthew Quigley Response: Never said He couldn't have done it your way, only that He didn't. 

The Roger Cobb Response: I'll bet He had a darn good reason.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> That's your opinion and it is respectable but it is no more accurate or truthful than anything presented to you from the A/A/A side. As much as you KNOW what God inspired, intended, his plan or what God's Will actually is, I feel the same way about my beliefs. Neither of us KNOW anything for certain, we are just making our best guess with what info is presented to us.
> 
> I have a hard time believing that a god could create everything, be capable of everything and be dismissed as working in mysterious ways when even the most faithful think something is a stretch, but god could not create a bible that was understandable in all cultures and languages to everyone all over the world. Man slaps something together in a tiny spot on the earth that clearly has the inconsistencies and faults of humans all throughout it, written in language that only a small percent of the population in that area can even understand, and yet it is passed off as the word of god for everyone on earth.
> 
> ...



I think a sensible person might realize this exact thing (in blue) and do a comparison of all the different beliefs that men all over the world have come up with regarding God(s) nature; or man's nature to contemplate "God(s)".  I have personally recognized quite a number of things that many of the religions have in common.  It's these commonalities that strike me as somehow fundamental to the human experience and not the differing mythologies.  All of the various "Creation" stories I know of are equally quaint.


----------



## VisionCasting (Apr 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Have you looked for many people of faith that do not subscribe to that theory?



Yep.  And you are lookin' at one.

If you want to make vague, unsupported claims... then at least disclaimer them.  If you want to provide statistical backing that most major players in Christianity subscribe to a Young Earth Theory, please do so.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Yep.  And you are lookin' at one.
> 
> If you want to make vague, unsupported claims... then at least disclaimer them.  If you want to provide statistical backing that most major players in Christianity subscribe to a Young Earth Theory, please do so.



The age of 6000 years was calculated by an Anglican Bishop named Ussher. 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/april27/8t5024.html 

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.htm

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307fea2.asp
first paragraph.

This guy:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/09/young-earth-creationism-among-leading.html

and on and on and on.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2011)

gtparts said:


> The Matthew Quigley Response: Never said He couldn't have done it your way, only that He didn't.
> 
> The Roger Cobb Response: I'll bet He had a darn good reason.




My response:
It was all man's doing, no god involved.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I think a sensible person might realize this exact thing (in blue) and do a comparison of all the different beliefs that men all over the world have come up with regarding God(s) nature; or man's nature to contemplate "God(s)".  I have personally recognized quite a number of things that many of the religions have in common.  It's these commonalities that strike me as somehow fundamental to the human experience and not the differing mythologies.  All of the various "Creation" stories I know of are equally quaint.




As humans it is in our nature to liken everything to a power JUST like us, but even better....the "ultimate us". There are also plenty of humans that worshiped things in nature like the sun, stars, wind, water, trees etc, things that provided life to them that had nothing to do with an "ultimate us" super being.


----------



## OntheFlyTyer (Apr 22, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Carbon dating has its problems..... http://www.essortment.com/carbon-dating-accuracy-flaws-carbon-dating-37183.html
> 
> I dont know how old the earth is and really dont care, that spider might be 100,000 years old



They would not have used Radio-carbon dating since it's limit is about 50,000 years. More likely they used Potassium-Argon or Fission-Track dating. Or they could have determined its age by the location it was found in.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> When thought of and written by man it will be corrupt. It is corrupt. If a higher power had anything to do with it, one original version would be readable and understandable and unquestionable to all.



So you say. Maybe God had a different plan on how to do it than you do. Maybe that's why he is God and you are you.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 22, 2011)

GONoob said:


> Without the bible, what else do you have? It's all that you know of christianity.



How do you know what I know?


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 22, 2011)

OntheFlyTyer said:


> They would not have used Radio-carbon dating since it's limit is about 50,000 years. More likely they used Potassium-Argon or Fission-Track dating. Or they could have determined its age by the location it was found in.



Or they guessed.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> So you say. Maybe God had a different plan on how to do it than you do. Maybe that's why he is God and you are you.



So you say. I guess since no one knows for sure your guess is as good as mine.
That is a lot of maybes you got going on Ted.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Or they guessed.



Educated guess if it was a guess. They probably used the best methods available to come to that conclusion. It is much better than the writings of scribes. Talk about guesses.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> So you say. I guess since no one knows for sure your guess is as good as mine.
> That is a lot of maybes you got going on Ted.



I absolutely agree!


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Educated guess if it was a guess. They probably used the best methods available to come to that conclusion. It is much better than the writings of scribes. Talk about guesses.



So says you again.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> So says you again.



Yep. It is all one opinion vs another. No one knows for sure.


----------



## VisionCasting (Apr 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The age of 6000 years was calculated by an Anglican Bishop named Ussher.
> 
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/april27/8t5024.html
> 
> ...



You can Google. Kudos. 

Now back up your claim that most major players in Christianity subscribe to Young Earth.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> You can Google. Kudos.
> 
> Now back up your claim that most major players in Christianity subscribe to Young Earth.



I Yahoo. Where did you want me to find it? 50 years of personal interviews? You asked I gave and now you don't like the examples. Bottom line I backed it up. What was I supposed to use to satisfy your needs? Would you accept a personal interview with my Mother-In-Law? She is a devout Catholic and what is written in the Bible is the absolute infallible word of god to her. She believes the earth is 5000-6000 years old.

There are over 1 billion catholics on earth and in those articles I gave it stated numerous times that  MANY or even some believe in the young earth theory. Some of over 1 billion is quite a few examples and that is just ones of the catholic faith.
From catholic.com(major player much??):
"Some Catholics, including a few "traditionalists" with public reputations and followings, have adopted what is known as the "young earth hypothesis," the idea that the world is not billions of years old but only thousands. Like their Fundamentalist counterparts, they contend that this position is mandated by Scripture and is substantiated by science."

If I took the time to find every christian demonination and every christian that was a proponent of the Young Earth Theory you will still find something to nit-pick at. You got the example you asked for.


----------



## VisionCasting (Apr 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I Yahoo. Where did you want me to find it? 50 years of personal interviews?



Start with an objective measure of what determines who a  'major players' is.  Get the top X of those, and determine their stance.  Seems easy to me.  You made the claim, and you've failed to substantiate it.  A quote from some Obscure Catholic site, that is not owned by, nor endorsed by, the actual Catholic Church isn't going to cut it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2011)

You got the examples you asked for and when shown to prove you wrong you dismiss them. My end of the deal is done.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2011)

http://www.nwcreation.net/colleges.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/action.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm

http://www.icr.org/article/115/


----------



## VisionCasting (Apr 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> You got the examples you asked for and when shown to prove you wrong you dismiss them. My end of the deal is done.



Show me where I asked for an example of anything.  If you don't understand the difference between an example and statistical evidence you'll go on making WAGs and unsupported claims your whole life.


----------



## OntheFlyTyer (Apr 23, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Or they guessed.



Nope

Doesn't work that way. To be published in a peer reviewed journal you have to do more then guess.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Show me where I asked for an example of anything.  If you don't understand the difference between an example and statistical evidence you'll go on making WAGs and unsupported claims your whole life.





VisionCasting said:


> You can Google. Kudos.
> 
> Now back up your claim that most major players in Christianity subscribe to Young Earth.



I backed up my claim(your words) with evidence that The Young Earth Theory is not only believed my many major players in Christianity but it is also being taught in numerous Christian Colleges.

I understand your trying to teach me a lesson between WAGS, claims( supported and otherwise), guesses, statistical evidence, but while I appreciate your lesson I gave you more than enough evidence to support the fact that the Young Earth Theory is alive and well within Christianity without providing a pie chart of the break down between denominations. I gave you a lot of real information ,Do with it whatever you please.


----------



## OntheFlyTyer (Apr 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I Yahoo. Where did you want me to find it? 50 years of personal interviews? You asked I gave and now you don't like the examples. Bottom line I backed it up. What was I supposed to use to satisfy your needs? Would you accept a personal interview with my Mother-In-Law? She is a devout Catholic and what is written in the Bible is the absolute infallible word of god to her. She believes the earth is 5000-6000 years old.
> 
> There are over 1 billion catholics on earth and in those articles I gave it stated numerous times that  MANY or even some believe in the young earth theory. Some of over 1 billion is quite a few examples and that is just ones of the catholic faith.
> From catholic.com(major player much??):
> ...




Being Traditionalist Catholic and a scientist I can personally attest that the percentage of Catholics and especially Traditionalist Catholics that believe in a "young earth hypothesis" is going to be very low. 

What the Church has stated on the matter in is that whether or not one believes in evolution, young earth, old earth, and so on is not a essential article of faith. Believing that no matter what occurred, it would not have been possible without the work of a creator is an essential article of faith. 

In fact recently the Vatican hosted a meeting of scientist and clergy to discuss the matter, I will look for a link to their report.


From Pope Benedict XVI

'While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of the first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago.

'Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.'


Pope John Paul II

'In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points ... Today, more than a half- century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.

'In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies - which was neither planned nor sought - constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory.'

'Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.'


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2011)

I read about the meeting the Vatican hosted. It is not until recently that they publicly changed their mind on the idea. I do not think the percentage is as low as you might think, and locally here there is a large percentage of church goers(especially in the retiree age and up) that REFUSE to honor what the Church's "NEW" stances are about things.  There are numerous Christian colleges that specifically teach the Young Earth Theory and I listed those above.


----------



## OntheFlyTyer (Apr 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I read about the meeting the Vatican hosted. It is not until recently that they publicly changed their mind on the idea. I do not think the percentage is as low as you might think, and locally here there is a large percentage of church goers(especially in the retiree age and up) that REFUSE to honor what the Church's "NEW" stances are about things.  There are numerous Christian colleges that specifically teach the Young Earth Theory and I listed those above.



Recently?

Do you mean 2010 recently?

Do you mean 1950's recently?

Or do you mean 1850's recently?

It was not until the early part of the 20th century that scientist began to accept evolutionary thought.

Maybe read _Humani Generis_ by Pius XII

Also the faithful are not required to honor something that is not a of matter doctrine, such as the age of the earth or evolutionary thought.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 25, 2011)

It's mainly evangelicals that are still defending YEC.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 25, 2011)

What I would like to know is not how many Christians today subscribe to YEC but why so many did prior to Darwin if their scriptures didn't lead them to that conclusion?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2011)

OntheFlyTyer said:


> Recently?
> 
> Do you mean 2010 recently?
> 
> ...



I believe it was in 2009 at the Pontifical Gregorian University. And I think just this year maybe Jan or Feb that the Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation. 

Faith really doesn't require much.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What I would like to know is not how many Christians today subscribe to YEC but why so many did prior to Darwin if their scriptures didn't lead them to that conclusion?



It seems that many did not for a long time, but it was not OK to admit it. Now that the church says it is OK to believe in evolution more people can admit it. Sometimes the church is like the gov't, they raise and lower standards to suit.


----------



## OntheFlyTyer (Apr 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What I would like to know is not how many Christians today subscribe to YEC but why so many did prior to Darwin if their scriptures didn't lead them to that conclusion?



Maybe because pretty much everyone subscribed to the YEC prior to the late 19th century, not just Christians.



bullethead said:


> I believe it was in 2009 at the Pontifical Gregorian University. And I think just this year maybe Jan or Feb that the Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.
> 
> Faith really doesn't require much.



I'm not really sure where you get this idea that only in the last few years the Church suddenly said it was OK to believe in evolution. 

Did you miss the part where Pope Pius XII spoke for it in the 1950's?

How about the part where most people in the scientific community thought of it as dubious until the later half of the 20th century?

The YEC was generally thought correct by all the vast majority of the world until, at least in historic terms recently. 

For most humans recent history does not reach beyond their own lifetime, but when you consider the fact that human history reaches back some 50,000+/- years, the late 19th century is pretty recent history. 

Remember these ideas of an Old Earth and of evolution are still very new in terms of human history. For 49,840 +/- years before, the earth (if its age was thought of at all) was thought to be very young.


----------



## VisionCasting (Apr 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I read about the meeting the Vatican hosted. It is not until recently that they publicly changed their mind on the idea.



Some how you seem to have mistakenly been led to believe that the Vatican speaks for all of Christianity.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Some how you seem to have mistakenly been led to believe that the Vatican speaks for all of Christianity.



Now now, now, , I merely gave ONE example of a christian denomination which just so happens to have over 1 billion members.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2011)

OntheFlyTyer said:


> Maybe because pretty much everyone subscribed to the YEC prior to the late 19th century, not just Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whoa big fella! I have one guy telling me that the YET is old and not many follow that today. All I did is show that there is still quite a few followers even in modern times. I'd say the 1950's is definitely modern times as is the 19th century. It does not change the fact that TODAY, the Young Earth Theory is still being taught in many christian colleges and is still believed my many christian followers of many christian denominations.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 25, 2011)

OntheFlyTyer said:


> Maybe because pretty much everyone subscribed to the YEC prior to the late 19th century, not just Christians.



In the west that is true. And what was the basis for that belief?


----------



## OntheFlyTyer (Apr 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> In the west that is true. And what was the basis for that belief?




It was not just a belief in the west, but I think you know that. Koi aren't just fish in a pond.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 25, 2011)

OntheFlyTyer said:


> It was not just a belief in the west, but I think you know that. Koi aren't just fish in a pond.



The biblical creation account was and still is the foundation for those claiming a young earth. Any exceptions you find will be just that. It's no accident that this was the dominant view in regions where the Abrahamic religions held sway but not in places where it didn't such as in India and China.


----------



## OntheFlyTyer (Apr 26, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The biblical creation account was and still is the foundation for those claiming a young earth. Any exceptions you find will be just that. It's no accident that this was the dominant view in regions where the Abrahamic religions held sway but not in places where it didn't such as in India and China.



The biblical creation story did not hold sway in India or China but other YE creation stories did and still do, just as much as it does in the west.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 26, 2011)

OntheFlyTyer said:


> The biblical creation story did not hold sway in India or China but other YE creation stories did and still do, just as much as it does in the west.



Source?


----------



## OntheFlyTyer (Apr 26, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The biblical creation account was and still is the foundation for those claiming a young earth. Any exceptions you find will be just that. It's no accident that this was the dominant view in regions where the Abrahamic religions held sway but not in places where it didn't such as in India and China.



Source?



atlashunter said:


> Source?




http://www.sacred-texts.com/

Look through the creation stories none of them hold an Old Earth view.

Here are a few articles:


Steinkellner, Ernst. “Hindu Doctrines of Creation and Their Buddhist Critiques.” Buddhism, Christianity and the Question of Creation. Burlington, Vt: Ashgate, 2006. 15-31. 


Balasubramanian, R. "The Origin of the World, the Concept of God, and the Image of the Human Person in Hinduism." Concept of God, the Origin of the World, and the Image of the Human in the World Religions, (2001): 11-42. 

Horsch, Paul. “From Creation Myth to World Law: The Early History of Dharma.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 32.5-6 (2004) : 423-448.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 26, 2011)

OntheFlyTyer said:


> Source?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




http://www.sacred-texts.com/time/timeline.htm



> 4,320,000,000 Creation of Universe by Brahma (Modern Hindu). The Rig-Veda has three hymns on the subject of Creation. See Rig-Veda 10:cxxix, Rig-Veda 10:cxxx, and Rig-Veda 10:cxc. [hin].




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_creationism



> Hindu cosmological view of creation
> 
> The Hindu cosmology and timelines in a way is the closest to modern scientific timelines and even more which might indicate that the big bang is not the beginning of everything but just the start of the present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes. The Rig Veda questions the origin of the cosmos in:
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_%28aeon%29



> Buddhism
> 
> According to Visuddhimagga, there are several explanations for types of kalpas and their duration. In the first explanation, there are four types:
> 
> ...


----------



## ted_BSR (May 6, 2011)

OntheFlyTyer said:


> Nope
> 
> Doesn't work that way. To be published in a peer reviewed journal you have to do more then guess.



A lot of my work is published. EPA, EPD, ADEM, USACE, all guesses! I do alot of groundwater work. It is dark down there! Ha!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 4, 2011)

Wow...just read that article.  165 MILLION!!!  and unchanged!!!

Evolutionary STASIS.    

Evolution explains it all, no matter what evidence pops up!   

I'll beat you to the punch...

God did it!!!      Magically!!!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Wow...just read that article.  165 MILLION!!!  and unchanged!!!
> 
> Evolutionary STASIS.
> 
> ...



 Where does it say unchanged? 

The theory of evolution is certainly not flawed, especially as Darwin stated it to be. On the other hand the contents of the Bible do not convince me that it is accurate, true, infallible, inerrant, or anything but a creation of man. I think science has far surpassed the Bible in explaining what has taken place on this earth and I continue to use those findings to base my beliefs off of. I have seen the scientific community change their minds after they have found enough evidence to allow them to do so where as what is printed in the Bible cannot change no matter how much evidence there is against it. One method is ever evolving in order to get to the truth or as close as possible, the other is set in stone with no room to change with the times.

We know things are older than what the bible and it's followers claim the earth to be, not by a couple of years or a few thousand years but millions upon millions upon billions of years older. We know mankind did not hit the dirt running like modern humans look now. We now know creatures lived and roamed this planet that no writer of biblical times ever dreamed of. Evolution might not explain it all but I am darn convinced religion and the bible cannot explain it at all.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 4, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Trusting Science is a far greater stretch than trusting the Bible. Science keeps changing its mind.



believing the voices inside someone's  head, that he wrote down and made a book . now that makes  way more since


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 4, 2011)

OntheFlyTyer said:


> Being Traditionalist Catholic and a scientist I can personally attest that the percentage of Catholics and especially Traditionalist Catholics that believe in a "young earth hypothesis" is going to be very low.
> 
> What the Church has stated on the matter in is that whether or not one believes in evolution, young earth, old earth, and so on is not a essential article of faith. Believing that no matter what occurred, it would not have been possible without the work of a creator is an essential article of faith.
> 
> ...





Do you have information or link about this " the truth about man" in this context (catholic). Thanks, if you do?


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 4, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> A lot of my work is published. EPA, EPD, ADEM, USACE, all guesses! I do alot of groundwater work. It is dark down there! Ha!



certainly not hades down there


----------



## allenww (Aug 5, 2011)

Don't get thrown off by the fact that those who wrote the Bible lived two thousand years ago.  Strip away their time - or strip away our time - and the message is the same.  

Follow the message - don't get lost in the details or allow other people to establish your path.  You will have a fuller, more satisfying existence,  and your afterlife will take care of itself.  

 wa


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Where does it say unchanged?



Lol    as if you cared if it did!   

This article says they are unchanged....   "living fossils".

http://amcostaricaarchives.com/2011/04/orb-weaver-spider-here-basically-unchanged-since-jurassic/

175 thousand thousand years....and it looks like something I'd swat in my backyard!   Isn't evolution awesome!!!      How does one organism tell its DNA not to change at all for the next 200 million years?   

I have searched high and low for pictures of those other two older fossil spiders they mention....at over 300 million years old!!!    Can't wait to see what they look like!

can anyone pull them up????  Eocteniza silvicola and Protocteniza britannica


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Lol    as if you cared if it did!
> 
> This article says they are unchanged....   "living fossils".
> 
> ...



From the article you posted.
"Orb-weaver spider here basically unchanged since Jurassic"
"The spider is the golden orb-weaver, which seems to have changed little in the last 175 million years. "

Basically unchanged & changed little. Sounds like there were some minute changes and it took over 100 million years for those subtle changes to occur.

It"s EVOLUTION Baby!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

lol    keep telling yourself that!    

165,000,000

I think you underestimate how long a million years is.   I wonder how many generations of spiders that equates to?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    keep telling yourself that!
> 
> 165,000,000
> 
> I think you underestimate how long a million years is.   I wonder how many generations of spiders that equates to?



Why fix it if ain't broke. Google Coelacanth.  Alligators, cockroaches, they haven't changed much either.  What's your point?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Wow...just read that article.  165 MILLION!!!  and unchanged!!!
> 
> Evolutionary STASIS.
> 
> ...



Run and hide!!!!  There's lightning and thunder!!!!  everyone into the cave!!!!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Why fix it if ain't broke. Google Coelacanth.  Alligators, cockroaches, they haven't changed much either.  What's your point?



lol    my point is that evolution explains everything, no matter what the evidence.

Evolution is a slow process that builds men from amoebas, unless...

it needs to be fast (Cambrian explosion)

or at a dead stand still (evolutionary 'statis' explains why some species just didn't seem to change at all for 300 million years)  for millions of years (coelcanth, alligators, roaches, spiders, butterflies, sharks, ad infinitum...)

a priori =   "since evolution HAS to be true, we must make all evidence fit the theory, no matter how many times it goes back and forth!"

165 thousand thousand years


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    my point is that evolution explains everything, no matter what the evidence.
> 
> Evolution is a slow process that builds men from amoebas, unless...
> 
> ...



Do you know the history of the discovery of the atom?  Or the history of the discovery of microorganisms?  They started out with notions.  They weren't exactly right to begin with, given the available technology, but they got refined and lo and behold were proven to be true in essence.

But if the idea that a giant guy in the sky got lonely so he blew snot into the dirt and up sprang a companion makes more sense to you, then we have nothing further to discuss.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> But if the idea that a giant guy in the sky got lonely so he blew snot into the dirt and up sprang a companion makes more sense to you then we have nothing further to discuss.



Why do you guys get so defensive?   I didn't mention anything about a "giant guy in the sky" or the like.   We are just discussing how the heck one species of spider could remain virtually unchanged for 200 million years....and discussing how some organism's genetic makeup stays static, while another's changes at a rapid rate over time.  

I can tell that the fact that scientists go back and forth as they 'fine tune' their theory is a thorn in your side....especially when dealing with creationists.   

ok..i'll let it go.    really does surprise me that one of the 'atheists' on here would provide a link to an insect that hasn't changed in eternity!    cutting your own throat in my opinion...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Why do you guys get so defensive?   I didn't mention anything about a "giant guy in the sky" or the like.   We are just discussing how the heck one species of spider could remain virtually unchanged for 200 million years....and discussing how some organism's genetic makeup stays static, while another's changes at a rapid rate over time.
> 
> I can tell that the fact that scientists go back and forth as they 'fine tune' their theory is a thorn in your side....especially when dealing with creationists.
> 
> ok..i'll let it go.    really does surprise me that one of the 'atheists' on here would provide a link to an insect that hasn't changed in eternity!    cutting your own throat in my opinion...



See that is where you are totally clueless. I've argued strongly that evolution makes more sense to me than some man written stories in the bible, but nowhere did I ever say that Darwinian Evolution is the ONE, ONLY tried and true answer to everything. In fact I'll save you a lot of time tracking back through my posts.....I never claimed it .

The example of the spider was in no way to show evolution. I made the post to show that the earth and it's creatures are much older than the Bible and it's believers claim it is. If they think Adam and Eve and the spiders around them were the first to roll in from 10,000- 6,000 years ago..........I got news for them.

There are many examples of distinct evolutionary changes in some creatures and little or no changes in others. Some never needed the changes. Are you going to say because horses and pigs have not sprouted wings in 300 million years that evolution does not exist?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> There are many examples of distinct evolutionary changes in some creatures and little or no changes in others. Some never needed the changes. Are you going to say because horses and pigs have not sprouted wings in 300 million years that evolution does not exist?



nothing has 'sprouted wings'.    lol     

what are some good transitional fossil species that illustrate change?   an undisputed line....


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Do you know the history of the discovery of the atom?  Or the history of the discovery of microorganisms?  They started out with notions.  They weren't exactly right to begin with, given the available technology, but they got refined and lo and behold were proven to be true in essence.
> 
> But if the idea that a giant guy in the sky got lonely so he blew snot into the dirt and up sprang a companion makes more sense to you, then we have nothing further to discuss.



Does the discovery of the atom disprove that God created everything?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

Well I'd have to scour the internet, post links and have you counter the examples which will be as close as anyone has found to date but not exactly 100%. I am satisfied that the line that is followed now will turn up the evidence in the future as we study and find more examples.

But. I'll do it. Is One example enough or how many must I include? While I am doing this, I'd like you to show the examples of your beliefs that are unquestionably and unarguably without challenge.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Why do you guys get so defensive?   I didn't mention anything about a "giant guy in the sky" or the like.   We are just discussing how the heck one species of spider could remain virtually unchanged for 200 million years....and discussing how some organism's genetic makeup stays static, while another's changes at a rapid rate over time.
> 
> I can tell that the fact that scientists go back and forth as they 'fine tune' their theory is a thorn in your side....especially when dealing with creationists.
> 
> ok..i'll let it go.    really does surprise me that one of the 'atheists' on here would provide a link to an insect that hasn't changed in eternity!    cutting your own throat in my opinion...




It's not a thorn, it's universally understood that theories change and that it is a good thing they do.  Have you seen some of DaVinci's drawings of "flying machines"?  They range from feathers glued onto wood frames to crazy cork screw contraptions.  Some of them have fixed wings with a membrane stretched across them like modern aircraft.  All of them, by the way, were deemed blasphemy by the church at some point.  "Fly like the birds!?!  It's an abomination! If God wanted you to fly he would have given you wings!"  

Honestly, aren't you glad that people ask questions, do experiments and posit their findings even if they contradict the Bible?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> nothing has 'sprouted wings'.    lol
> 
> what are some good transitional fossil species that illustrate change?   an undisputed line....



Are you throwing the gauntlet down on a "cut and paste war"?  Tiktaalik. Archaeopteryx.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Does the discovery of the atom disprove that God created everything?



No. It does not.  But it does show that if people simply accepted the Bible's explanation or any other religion's explanation of the natural world that we would still be wearing burlap sacks.  Perhaps you would find that preferable.   Would you prefer us in burlap sacks, plowing the dirt with mules but all devout and obedient servants to the Lord Thy God or are you glad that some people said "The stuff in the Bible is suspect!  I'm going to try and find out the truth for myself."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

After I go and see "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" tonight, I'll give a few more examples....LOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

lol    nope...i'd rather not participate in a cut-and-paste talkorigins/trueorigins war.    That's probably where it would wind up....so I withdraw the gauntlet.  

also, bullet, the 'Tu Quoque' logical fallacy of using the 'others do it, too' argument isn't a defense of your position.  Even if my beliefs have disputed points, it isn't a defense of evolutionary 'flip flop' position-changing and 'forcing all the evidence into one theory' a-priori thinking.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> No. It does not.  But it does show that if people simply accepted the Bible's explanation or any other religion's explanation of the natural world that we would still be wearing burlap sacks.  Perhaps you would find that preferable.   Would you prefer us in burlap sacks, plowing the dirt with mules but all devout and obedient servants to the Lord Thy God or are you glad that some people said "The stuff in the Bible is suspect!  I'm going to try and find out the truth for myself."




actually, there are a lot of PhD's who are creationists/theists.   Being a creationionist/theist doesn't mean someone can't be a good scientist.   Instead, they would be trying to figure out how god did it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Honestly, aren't you glad that people ask questions, do experiments and posit their findings even if they contradict the Bible?



Yes.   No doubt.   That has led to many cures and inventions that I enjoy.

Im not against science....just want the evidence looked at objectively, instead of assuming it fits one theory.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> 
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html



But...but...carbon dating doesn't work.  And they found that whale skeleton in the supposedly old dirt?  

Here's the thing, it doesn't matter how much evidence you put up, God trumps ALL human understanding.   That's how you get folks that won't let their kids have medicine and people that fly planes into buildings and people that play with snakes.  All of those are extreme examples.  And there are reasonable and moderate Christians, just not so much here.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    nope...i'd rather not participate in a cut-and-paste talkorigins/trueorigins war.    That's probably where it would wind up....so I withdraw the gauntlet.
> 
> also, bullet, the 'Tu Quoque' logical fallacy of using the 'others do it, too' argument isn't a defense of your position.  Even if my beliefs have disputed points, it isn't a defense of evolutionary 'flip flop' position-changing and 'forcing all the evidence into one theory' a-priori thinking.



I have no "others do it too" argument or defense. If I am asked for examples that provide evidence to my line of thinking, I'd like to see some examples that provide the same in return.

If I am tracking a wounded deer and the hoof prints are going in a direction that I have followed for a long time then suddenly stop for 10 ft and I pick them up again...I am confident that I am on the same tracks and will find that deer. He may have jumped or I may have missed a track, but the evidence points to the same line of travel and the end result.

I feel the same way about evolution. There is enough information given to form a line of travel that even when there is a break in that line( didn't find it YET, or found pieces not whole fossils) there is enough evidence before and after to make and educated guess on where it is heading. Is it flawed, Yes. But for me it makes more sense than anything else I have heard about.
If you have something better I am all ears.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> But...but...carbon dating doesn't work.  And they found that whale skeleton in the supposedly old dirt?
> 
> Here's the thing, it doesn't matter how much evidence you put up, God trumps ALL human understanding.   That's how you get folks that won't let their kids have medicine and people that fly planes into buildings and people that play with snakes.  All of those are extreme examples.  And there are reasonable and moderate Christians, just not so much here.



Loud and Clear Ambush!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> And there are reasonable and moderate Christians, just not so much here.



by "not so much here" you mean???   in this forum?  lol


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Yes.   No doubt.   That has led to many cures and inventions that I enjoy.
> 
> Im not against science....just want the evidence looked at objectively, instead of assuming it fits one theory.



It's the best one we've got so far.  Just like Gravitational _THEORY_.  It really does make sense, just not from a Biblical perspective.  (Although I've met some Christians who are scientists who have made it work with the Bible but there was a lot of "song and dance" required.  They would be called "not real Christians" by many on this board.)


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Loud and Clear Ambush!



that reminds me of another smilie face we need.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> And there are reasonable and moderate Christians, just not so much here.



Wait a minute , now! Didn`t you and me talk about this one time??


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> (Although I've met some Christians who are scientists who have made it work with the Bible but there was a lot of "song and dance" required.



that's the pot calling the kettle 'black'!   lol

"song and dance" is a daily feature of evolutionists!  Their position changes almost daily!


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Yes.   No doubt.   That has led to many cures and inventions that I enjoy.
> 
> Im not against science....just want the evidence looked at objectively, instead of assuming it fits one theory.



From _Inherit the Wind_:

Henry Drummond: Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it.
Henry Drummond: Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, "All right, you can have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance.
Henry Drummond: Madam, you may vote but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder puff or your petticoat.
Henry Drummond: Mister, you may conquer the air but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline." 



Nicodemus said:


> Wait a minute , now! Didn`t you and me talk about this one time??



Yes we did, Sir.



BANDERSNATCH said:


> that's the pot calling the kettle 'black'!   lol
> 
> "song and dance" is a daily feature of evolutionists!  Their position changes almost daily!



It's called trial and error in the scientific field.  It's called blasphemy at church.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> From _Inherit the Wind_:
> 
> Henry Drummond: Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it.
> Henry Drummond: Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, "All right, you can have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance.
> ...





You even called me a good Christian.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> by "not so much here" you mean???   in this forum?  lol



My Unitarian in laws would be chased away from Woody's campfire at the end of a gun. Gay lovin', homo pastorin', anti-warin', illegal alien amnestyin', changin' the words to hymns to make them gender ambiguous singin' HEATHENS!!!!!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> actually, there are a lot of PhD's who are creationists/theists.   Being a creationionist/theist doesn't mean someone can't be a good scientist.   Instead, they would be trying to figure out how god did it.



Is that possible?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> You even called me a good Christian.



I honesty believe that you are. I really do.  You seem to readily admit your humanity and don't seem to take a "high and mighty" position in regards to your beliefs.  You seem to be a live and let live kind of guy.  (Ceptn' for them dirty Rag Heads.)


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

I can't say that there is no God or that he is not responsible for creating everything(the first atom or spark to get everything else going that is much older than humans and the earth). But what I am confident is that with everything I have heard and read and researched over a soon to be 42 years is there is no religious version that remotely gives me a shred of confidence in the ways they seem to have it all explained.
The evidence I have gathered in my mind through scientific and evolutionary examples far outweighs any evidence(specifically the extreme LACK of evidence) that religion has going for it. Someone reads where an ancient town that was mentioned in the Bible is unearthed and THAT is what they hang their hat on to prove everything else in the Bible is true?? C'mon!!! They disregard and overlook the hundreds of outlandish and ridiculous claims where there never has been a shred of evidence and because a brick was found on the outskirts of a dump, all of a sudden everything else is true. They do this while overlooking the fact that the same town was mentioned in 60 other religions, some thousands of years older than theirs, so does that make the other religions JUST as true? They take their family into a museum where there are dinosaur bones dating back hundreds of millions of years, oooh and ahhh at the magnitude of it all, but totally don't get that their bible says those bones can't be that old. Or the lump of coal that they heat their home with is only 6,000 years old cause God made it.....it didn't take a few hundred million years to become coal from plants.
Given the choice between the two, I am confident in my beliefs. I am open to any and all other suggestions but I'll have to have some proof to go with it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> No. It does not.  But it does show that if people simply accepted the Bible's explanation or any other religion's explanation of the natural world that we would still be wearing burlap sacks.  Perhaps you would find that preferable.   Would you prefer us in burlap sacks, plowing the dirt with mules but all devout and obedient servants to the Lord Thy God or are you glad that some people said "The stuff in the Bible is suspect!  I'm going to try and find out the truth for myself."



The bible is not meant to be a science book. I am not following your logic here, because we have advanced as a civilization and discovered new technology the bible is somehow disproven or inaccurate? Science is not needed for Salvation, if it was, the bible would be the greatest science book ever written.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Is that possible?



It's easily done.  They just don't take the Bible so literally.  They read it as mostly metaphorical. Particularly any of the particularly fantastic accounts.  

They are seen as bad Christians by Fundamentalists.


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I honesty believe that you are. I really do.  You seem to readily admit your humanity and don't seem to take a "high and mighty" position in regards to your beliefs.  You seem to be a live and let live kind of guy.  (Ceptn' for them dirty Rag Heads.)





I`m not gonna go try to convertin` folks, plus, I`m gettin` tender-hearted in my old age. I reckon.  

I didn`t mean to disrupt ya`lls thread. Have a goodun.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I can't say that there is no God or that he is not responsible for creating everything(the first atom or spark to get everything else going that is much older than humans and the earth). But what I am confident is that with everything I have heard and read and researched over a soon to be 42 years is there is no religious version that remotely gives me a shred of confidence in the ways they seem to have it all explained.
> The evidence I have gathered in my mind through scientific and evolutionary examples far outweighs any evidence(specifically the extreme LACK of evidence) that religion has going for it. Someone reads where an ancient town that was mentioned in the Bible is unearthed and THAT is what they hang their hat on to prove everything else in the Bible is true?? C'mon!!! They disregard and overlook the hundreds of outlandish and ridiculous claims where there never has been a shred of evidence and because a brick was found on the outskirts of a dump, all of a sudden everything else is true. They do this while overlooking the fact that the same town was mentioned in 60 other religions, some thousands of years older than theirs, so does that make the other religions JUST as true? They take their family into a museum where there are dinosaur bones dating back hundreds of millions of years, oooh and ahhh at the magnitude of it all, but totally don't get that their bible says those bones can't be that old. Or the lump of coal that they heat their home with is only 6,000 years old cause God made it.....it didn't take a few hundred million years to become coal from plants.
> Given the choice between the two, I am confident in my beliefs. I am open to any and all other suggestions but I'll have to have some proof to go with it.



how long does it take to make coal?   how long does it take something to fossilize?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> how long does it take to make coal?   how long does it take something to fossilize?



Longer than 42 years I guess. You tell me.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> how long does it take to make coal?   how long does it take something to fossilize?



I've laid out my beliefs and the how's and why's and as much proof as I could find to back it up.

Your turn....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Longer than 42 years I guess. You tell me.



lol   not millions of years....     something can fossilize in a few months.     

a few years ago you'd have told me that it would be almost impossible to find flexible soft blood vessels in a T-rex bone, but, waalaaaaa!!!!


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The bible is not meant to be a science book. I am not following your logic here, because we have advanced as a civilization and discovered new technology the bible is somehow disproven or inaccurate? Science is not needed for Salvation, if it was, the bible would be the greatest science book ever written.



I would go so far as to say that the Bible is not necessary for "salvation" (whatever that means).  

The tragedy is when people look to the Bible for answers about the natural world, answers better investigated by scientific methods.  The result of such folly is that abomination (you guys don't own that word) in Kentucky, the Creation Museum, which poisons the minds of children by leading them to believe that ancient humans ground wheat stream side right next to velociraptors.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   not millions of years....     something can fossilize in a few months.
> 
> a few years ago you'd have told me that it would be almost impossible to find flexible soft blood vessels in a T-rex bone, but, waalaaaaa!!!!



Okay, claim was made, now the example.....

I'll take one for coal too.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   not millions of years....     something can fossilize in a few months.
> 
> a few years ago you'd have told me that it would be almost impossible to find flexible soft blood vessels in a T-rex bone, but, waalaaaaa!!!!


 

The point being (my point, anyways) is:   Thank God they keep looking and not relying on "the Word of God".


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

Scientific American of March 17, 1855   page 211:

    "On the 20th of August, 1847, Mrs. Phelps, wife of our informant, Abner P. Phelps, died, and was buried at Oak Grove, in Dodge Co. On the 11th of April inst., she was taken up to be removed to Strong’s Landing. The coffin was found to be very heavy, and the body to retain its features and proportions. After its removal to Strong’s Landing, a distance of some 45 miles, the body was examined, and found to be wholly petrified, converted to a substance resembling a light colored stone. Upon trial, edge tools made no more impression upon it than upon marble. In striking upon the body with metal, a hollow singing sound was produced....The ground in which she had been buried was a yellowish loam, and the body lay about three feet above the lime rock....A few years ago a lady died in the neighborhood of Felicity, in this County, and was buried in the orchard on the farm. About four years, after she was disinterred, for the purpose of removal to a public graveyard, she was found to be completely petrified, being as solid as stone and fully as heavy. Every feature was distinct and perfect."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Okay, claim was made, now the example.....
> 
> I'll take one for coal too.



In fact throw in some examples of how man made diamonds are equal to natural ones.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> I`m not gonna go try to convertin` folks, plus, I`m gettin` tender-hearted in my old age. I reckon.
> 
> I didn`t mean to disrupt ya`lls thread. Have a goodun.



With age comes wisdom, so they say.  I'm only 40 so what do I know.  Glad for you to stop by.  You bring a certain other perspective to any thread you contribute to.  

At the end of the day, I bet we would all be in agreement if we were stuck in a briar patch together.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> In fact throw in some examples of how man made diamonds are equal to natural ones.



lol   how would that benefit the discussion?     does age improve diamonds?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Scientific American of March 17, 1855   page 211:
> 
> "On the 20th of August, 1847, Mrs. Phelps, wife of our informant, Abner P. Phelps, died, and was buried at Oak Grove, in Dodge Co. On the 11th of April inst., she was taken up to be removed to Strong’s Landing. The coffin was found to be very heavy, and the body to retain its features and proportions. After its removal to Strong’s Landing, a distance of some 45 miles, the body was examined, and found to be wholly petrified, converted to a substance resembling a light colored stone. Upon trial, edge tools made no more impression upon it than upon marble. In striking upon the body with metal, a hollow singing sound was produced....The ground in which she had been buried was a yellowish loam, and the body lay about three feet above the lime rock....A few years ago a lady died in the neighborhood of Felicity, in this County, and was buried in the orchard on the farm. About four years, after she was disinterred, for the purpose of removal to a public graveyard, she was found to be completely petrified, being as solid as stone and fully as heavy. Every feature was distinct and perfect."



Honestly, My Great-Great Grandmother( Grandmother's Grandmother) was in a petrified state after death. Wild, weird, neat. Not nearly the same as coal or as frequent.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   how would that benefit the discussion?     does age improve diamonds?



I don't know. It seems though that man made ones cannot produce the same qualities as diamonds that were formed over millions of years.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Scientific American of March 17, 1855   page 211:
> 
> "On the 20th of August, 1847, Mrs. Phelps, wife of our informant, Abner P. Phelps, died, and was buried at Oak Grove, in Dodge Co. On the 11th of April inst., she was taken up to be removed to Strong’s Landing. The coffin was found to be very heavy, and the body to retain its features and proportions. After its removal to Strong’s Landing, a distance of some 45 miles, the body was examined, and found to be wholly petrified, converted to a substance resembling a light colored stone. Upon trial, edge tools made no more impression upon it than upon marble. In striking upon the body with metal, a hollow singing sound was produced....The ground in which she had been buried was a yellowish loam, and the body lay about three feet above the lime rock....A few years ago a lady died in the neighborhood of Felicity, in this County, and was buried in the orchard on the farm. About four years, after she was disinterred, for the purpose of removal to a public graveyard, she was found to be completely petrified, being as solid as stone and fully as heavy. Every feature was distinct and perfect."



Not the same process as I understand it.  Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm certain you will) but what happened to them sounds like mummification. I think for true fossilization or petrification to occur the organism has to be encased in earth, in order to make a "mold", if you will.  Please review this link and let me know what you think.

http://geology.about.com/cs/basics_life/f/faq5petrify.htm

P.S.  It's from a science journal so be careful, they may have some evil anti Christian agenda.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Not the same process as I understand it.  Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm certain you will) but what happened to them sounds like mummification. I think for true fossilization or petrification to occur the organism has to be encased in earth, in order to make a "mold" of you will.  Please review this link and let me know what you think.
> 
> http://geology.about.com/cs/basics_life/f/faq5petrify.htm
> 
> P.S.  It's from a science journal so be careful, they may have some evil anti Christian agenda.



In our family the story of my G-G grandmothers petrification(sp?) has been told many times over. I have since read where no human body as actually found under scientific study to have ever been petrified like wood and other substances.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I don't know. It seems though that man made ones cannot produce the same qualities as diamonds that were formed over millions of years.



I think they're better than natural diamonds, from a utilitarian perspective.  From an aesthetic perspective, I think that the experts would say that the cultured ones lack "character" (what they mean is impurities).


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Not the same process as I understand it.  Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm certain you will) but what happened to them sounds like mummification. I think for true fossilization or petrification to occur the organism has to be encased in earth, in order to make a "mold" of you will.  Please review this link and let me know what you think.
> 
> http://geology.about.com/cs/basics_life/f/faq5petrify.htm
> 
> P.S.  It's from a science journal so be careful, they may have some evil anti Christian agenda.



I agree with their explanation.    No doubt a difference between the two.   IMO, the example of the 'mummy' I provided is probably an example of quick petrification.    Ever how we describe it, that body would have been around for a very long time....


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

Are there any examples of plants turning into coal in such a short time also?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I think they're better than natural diamonds, from a utilitarian perspective.  From an aesthetic perspective, I think that the experts would say that the cultured ones lack "character" (what they mean is impurities).



Less impurities, more weight and not as hard as real diamonds. They can be made a lot quicker but they are just not exactly the same.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I agree with their explanation.    No doubt a difference between the two.   IMO, the example of the 'mummy' I provided is probably an example of quick petrification.    Ever how we describe it, that body would have been around for a very long time....



The difference is dessication of the tissue or the chemical alteration of the tissue vs. wholesale replacement of the tissue with minerals.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Less impurities, more weight and not as hard as real diamonds. They can be made a lot quicker but they are just not exactly the same.



I did not know they were not as hard.  I thought pure carbon could only get so hard.  Must be the way that the crystals formed.  Should I look in the Old Testament or New Testament to find out about this?  

Just kiddn y'alls


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Are there any examples of plants turning into coal in such a short time also?



Hmm..... i know that it's been produced quickly in a lab...but not sure about natural examples from recent history.    it would probably take a flood to pile up tree bark and then have some heat applied.   lol


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I did not know they were not as hard.  I thought pure carbon could only get so hard.  Must be the way that the crystals formed.  *Should I look in the Old Testament or New Testament to find out about this?*
> 
> Just kiddn y'alls



You wouldn't find it in either.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 5, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yep. It is all one opinion vs another. No one knows for sure.



BH summed up this thread on post #48.


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> It's easily done.  They just don't take the Bible so literally.  They read it as mostly metaphorical. Particularly any of the particularly fantastic accounts.
> 
> They are seen as bad Christians by Fundamentalists.


There are quite a few portions of the bible that are metaphorical.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> There are quite a few portions of the bible that are metaphorical.



I guess they just disagree with fundamentalists on which portions those are.  Heck, if I call it all metaphorical even I can get behind it.

(And I do.)


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> nothing has 'sprouted wings'.    lol
> 
> what are some good transitional fossil species that illustrate change?   an undisputed line....



Wolves to Dogs


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Wolves to Dogs



Same number of genes.


----------

