I found these to be rather interesting articles at a skim at least [didn't have the time when first read them to be thorough]. I looked stuff up on it after seeing summat in a geology text about it. So i figured i would post them here and see what people had to say about them. [And yes of course the sources are 'biased' or whatever, but that's the nature of presented information, sew]

http://evolution-facts.org/2evlch17e.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/12fos10.htm


------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Interestin'. I wonder what new theories might arise from this.

------------------
Check out the following stories over at the Interactive Story Board:
The Never-ending Story Thread or visit the new webcomic version!
The Vision Cycle series
Featured Story: The Darkside Chronicles

The principle of evolution has always been a theory. Just because someone makes a mistake or fails to find absolute proof doesn't mean such a respectable theory should be immediately given up on. At any rate - it would still have much more logical basis than creation scenarios.

Secondly, it's not hard to see that not all scientists agree on the same thing - in fact, they often contradict eachother. You could easily write an article proving that point A is true, and have it backed up by doctor X, and then write an article that also proves that point A is false and have doctor Y back that up as well. I wouldn't trust those articles simply by the tone used by the author or authors. It's like "HA! take THAT, ignorant evolutionists!". Maybe if it was written from a neutral perspective, it would be slightly more convincing.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

[This message has been edited by Flexor (edited March 05, 2004).]

I wouldn't pay it much attention. Casting doubt on rock strata and fossilization doesn't change the fact that evolution is an observable phenomenon.


-Fox

In a few billion years when we're all giant brains, I'm sure humanity (giantbrainity?) will join together in riotous laughter at all of the people who don't understand the word "metaphor".

I would be able to reply to that post a lot better, if it made any sense.

What precisely about geological strata is 'metaphor'?

And Flex, of course it is biased, i already said as much at the outset, unbiased information is largely a hoax, the reason people /present/ information is precisely because they /have/ a bias [opinion] about it..

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Jon's referring to how some Christians take the Bible, at least the first two chapters of Genesis, literally.


-Fox

Well I suppose that's mostly true, but then there's also people like me who don't really believe in evolution as a fact, but rather see it only as a possibility. I mean, how many of us were there when the earth was created? So how can anyone claim to "know" what happened? They only know what they want to know.



------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Were you there when we landed on the Moon?

Evolution is observed today, for that matter.


-Fox

This isn't about evolution being observable or not, this was a question for clarification on a matter of apparently chimeric geological ordering and dating of strata.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

I know, but the people running that site are trying any angle possible to disprove evolution, including the red herring of attacking geological data (which they still don't account for the age of the Earth).


-Fox

I realise that Fox, i wasn't presenting them as being unbiased by any stretch. It was merely a subject i was unfamiliar with and seemed to have a lot of interesting points i had never heard before in any scientific context i have been in previously regarding geology and history and that sort of thing.

So ignoring the obviously religious zealoutry or whatever, i was hoping someone could presnt or expound on the subject, whether it be supporting the premises presented in those articles, or shoiwng that they are completely misrepresenting data that has otherwise perfectly reasonable explanations within the accepted confines of geological strata dating or whatever.

Even if that just includes going through and poking at the bolded section heading abstracts. As i have mentioned previously, i am a history major, not a geology major, but i have never anywhere seen or heard of the strata as anything but complete progressive canon, when by lots of quotations in there, the strata are somewhat chimeric.

I find this especially interesting when corrolated to quotes from other texts such as: crt/o http://www.ooblick.com/text/evoquotes.html




------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

The moon landing didn't happen millions of years ago.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Sorry, not going to ignore that. It would be like being receptive to the claims that we didn't land on the Moon, while ignoring the fact that the people making the claims have no background in photography, engineering, etc.



That's beside the point. You weren't there to see it happen, so why believe it did?


-Fox

No, you can go to the inconsistencies of carbon-dating for that.



Overall, what I don't get is this - let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the earth is really found to be 6000-8000 years old, and that "Macro-evolution" is found to be a bad theory.

What has changed really? Will all of science suddenly implode? It strikes me as odd to see that within the scientific community, that there are people so anti-religion, they allow themselves to be skewed by it, i.e. any result that corrolates with christianity must be thrown out, because christianity is definitely wrong. How very unscientific, and yet I see it all the time in science.

Case in point, the genome project was a hot topic of debate, until a couple of the scientists working on it, secular btw, said that the dna genome structure was "too perfect to be the result of evolution. It had to be designed." Once that was said, boom, no more press coverage.

I mean, if you are a scientist who hates religion, why not just go from there and say we were made by aliens or something? People have been dying for proof of extra-terrestrial existance - maybe we are the proof? I don't believe so, but it certainly is plausable within the realm of science.

To be honest, I think the scientific community is handling evolution in the same manner as they handled the "earth revolving around the sun" thing - denying it's true despite evidence, and persecuting anyone who disagrees.

Not really looking for argument, just airing out my thoughts, and wondering why the scientific community as a whole seem to be the ones most resistant to change and finding the truth, when they should be the ones advancing the 2...



------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

You've mentioned that before... How is it observed today?



------------------
"So there I was completely naked and covered in tartar sauce..."

Firefox, "observe" may not be the best word/phrase to use. I think "see some evidence of" would be better. "Observe" implies that we can actually see it happen right before us, but evolution is too slow for that.

Also Firefox, we can see the moon landing. Over, and over, and over, and over. Of course, even then you have your conspiracy theorists.

(I'm not trying to be a grammer prick, I just want to save you from possible flamings)
------------------
Checksum: I thought about it, I guess I'm striving for my own personal ideals. I'll just project those ideals onto Jesus and say "I'm trying to be like Jesus" so that I won't have to listen to you banter endlessly about me worshipping a false god or some such.

The Last True Evil: Ironically, that's very Christian of you.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited March 08, 2004).]

*Laughs himself silly due to the irony*



------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

[This message has been edited by -Fear- (edited March 08, 2004).]

Strawman fallacy. Carbon dating isn't used to determine Earth's age.



That would require refutation of all evidence that points to the Earth being older than 6,000 years (I'm interested in knowing where the 10,000-year number originated).



Red herring fallacy. Not all scientists hate religion, and that has nothing to do with the issue.



Present an alternative theory that explains the evidence and then some, and you'll see evolution reconsidered.



Read here.



No, I really meant "observe".


-Fox

Um... yeah.
Here's a project for you: Take a bucket. Fill it with water, then punch a little hole in the bottom and let the water drip out. Come back a month later and see if you can accurately calculate when you filled the bucket.

It's not meant to be 100% accurate, but it is far more accurate than any number presented in the Bible (especially pi ). By making the arrogant claim that carbon dating doesn't work, you're not only invalidating the work of geologists and anthropologists, but the work of nuclear physicists... and given the last century you'd have to be a total moron to dismiss them.



So what you're asking is that scientists and interested individuals everywhere give religion this credit out of pity?

Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not, never was, never will be, no matter how much the creationists want the label. The study of evolution is an important part of microbiology.

What would change if we "forgot" about evolution? Not a whole lot now. But you're forgetting one simple fact: All human advancements are based entirely upon improving and extending existing theories and applications. We don't have a use for evolution now, but in the future we might be able to find an application for this knowledge.
You don't know what's possible, just like how you don't know what happened a few billion years ago. Presuming that you do, and that evolution has no point is the height of arrogance.

Maybe creationism is pointless and stupid, and you should just forget about it. How would anything be different? People can still worship God and not believe the universe is younger than recorded human history, rite?



I guess that means you aren't going to be able to provide a reference for your claim.



No it isn't, because there's no proof. Just like how there's no proof for divine creation, and no proof that we've always been here.

Evolution may appear to have serious flaws to the layman, but unlike other theories it actually has supporting evidence and followers who are respected by the scientific community.



Uhm... great job there, Copernicus, but it was the religious body that tried to dispell the theory that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.



Yeah, whatever.

Throughout your post you're airing some sort of religious persecution complex, which is totally absurd. Your attitude and utterly absurd interpretation of history belies the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists are, in fact, religious - and for some reason they don't have a problem believing in evolution, yet you laypeople find millions of ways to criticize them for it.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited March 08, 2004).]

Thank you to both Fox and Jon for proving my point on how bias affects how people judge things.

Case in point:

Carbon Dating

Not used to judge the age of the earth per say, but it is used to judge the contents of items within the earth by palentologists, and is subsequently used as proof that the earth is older than theologians say. It is used as supplimentary evidence. If Fox was interested in being correct instead of ego-posturing, he would know that. Jon'C on the other hand misses the boat completely by saying that by showing Carbon dating to be invalid, we would in effect be invalidating numerous scientific findings...wellduh you say that like its a bad thing. It would be no more damaging to science then the fact that the earth revolves around the sun did to all the work and theories prior to that discovery about the earth being the enter of the solar system, and everything revolving around it. And many scientists have Jon's attitude - which is what I find sad. Of course, never mind the case where a carbon dating was used on a certain piece of paper that was made recently, and the test case of it came back as the paper being 27,000 years old. And yet you hear results like this being tossed out all the time. I don't know, maybe it is just me, but common sense tells me that if a dating process needs to routinely have results tossed out that are inaccurate, then the test isn't all that accurate to begin with!

Regarding my theoretical "what if" idea of "what if scientists found out the earth was 6000-8000 years old

I like how Fox absolutely refused to indulge in the "what if", like he seldom ever does. It's as if even rationally considering the possibility somehow would make him melt. And in Jon's case, he overlooks the idea that I said ...was proven... and suddenly thinks that I think scientists should take pity on religious folk. There is obvious bias there as my concept said no such thing, and the extremes these two actually are symptomatic of the lengths many in the scientific community will go to in order to avoid having to even consider something that contradicts their personal beliefs, even if it means skewing the results. How very unscientific. Also indicitive of Fox's desire to dodge questions I pose, is his comment:



on this quote of mine:



Note the word I bolded for reading comprehension - the one I am guessing Fox intentionally missed. "If" is exclusive. Using it how I did means "If you are (part of this group, i.e. a scientist who hates religion)". Note that I did not say that all scientists hate religion - a conclusion Fox was all too happy to jump to, to dismiss my point.

Now, on to some quotes:



No, I am just not going to present it to you. I have lurked on these boards long enough to know both you and Fox are set in your mindsets, and that based on your attitudes you both take what you think as absolute fact, even if it isn't, and there is no convincing the two of you otherwise. Now, if there is someone else who just wants to investigate, to those people I will be more than happy to share. I just am not big on wasting my time on people who think they are always right (as in you and Fox, and I only say that because I know you two, and you two always use comments like the one I just made and say the opposite is true, as in "No, you are wrong, how dare you disagree with me!" kind of tone).



Ah, I see, so now anyone who disagrees with you is now a layman? Here is one for you - if even a layman can see the problems in a given thoery, then the theory likely isn't a good one. In otherwords, if even an idiot can see there is some things that are wrong with the theory, why continue to support it?
And btw, respected and supported by whom? By people who have the same intolerance as you and Fox?



Quite a smart-alec mouth you have on you Jon. But nonetheless, the religious body was also the scientific body, and the teachings they held to were greek in origin, and had little to do with religion. The point still stands.

And the final quote, this one from Fox:



Some have been presented, and dismissed out of hand with zero testing.

Even if I were to have such evidence, who is to say you, or the scientific community would believe it?


-------------------------------------

Conclusion:

All in all, I replied because I see Jon and Fox as things that are symptomatic of science, and there are too many people I have come across that are just like them. If such leaps in reasoning and logic are done just to protect ego here, in a forum, what's to say it isn't done (it is) in the arena of science?

I never set out to prove the age of the earth or to argue evolution with my initial post; I set out to show the bias of people, and how it can affect logical, rational thought.

I feel that Fox and Jon both proved my point. I know they will disagree, and if anyone else does, that's fine. I am ok with that. My point was made, and it will be lost on those it will be lost on, and it will be made to those willing to listen.

So anyway, to this thread -

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

(Apologies to Douglas Adams!)


------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

I'm calling BS, misinterpretation, quoting out of context, a loose grasp of science and history, and pointing out the typical declaration-of-victory-and-abandoning-of-thread post that is so common on this forum.

But I'm not terribly inclined to refute the ramblings of somebody who refuses to provide evidence for their claims on the basis that I'm the one who requested it (or maybe because it doesn't exist at all). Thanks for playing though. We'll mail your copy of the home game.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited March 08, 2004).]

Fear: I want to see your references, too. Mostly because I want to watch Jon and Fox tear them apart, but I'm always willing to throw any valid points you make on the so far minimal pile of worthwhile creationist arguments.

After reading your conclusion, I can't believe you want anyone to take you seriously. Making a series of unsubstantiated claims, refusing to provide references, and then running off is not making a point. If you don't have a valid argument or are unwilling to make it, you should say as much instead of fabricating a pathetically transparent attempt at saving face.

Lol.

Like I said:



And the point is this - you guys are approaching me like I am arguing logic, when all I did was make a social commentary!



Sorry, but the fact that you missed out on that, despite the fact I intentionally left clues in there to hint at what I was doing, only further proves the point I was making with my social commentary.

*shrugs*

Sorry, but you people are fun to mess with!

Lighten up!



*Fear gives a beer to everyone in the thread*


------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

"I was only joking" is another classic.

Lol, you are priceless Jon.

I made a social commentary and experiment, and you guys only backed up my hypothesis. I never said "I was just kidding" - what I said was that I essentially got you to be so blinded by your own biases that you failed to realize my argument was a social one, not a scientific one, and yet you both still tried to argue the point scientifically. Essentially, I duped you both into making your own strawmen arguments to prove my point.

But hey, the point will likely be lost on you, so instead, here's a beer!

*slides a beer down the bar and in front of Jon*

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

But Jon, you're missing just how witty and complicated his post was, his intellect must be much greater than yours if you can't understand that!

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

Wow.

People need to loosen up...

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

That rarely happenes here.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

I'm really glad your post was just a joke, Fear. It was such a trainwreck of stupidity, bad logic and poorly-drawn conclusions that... well... I was afraid I would have had to make a personal attack on you.

But since it was all just a joke, we're still right?

Yeah, I noticed. Maybe the next beer I give out should have Ex-lax, to loosen up the tight buttholes around here (er, refering to actual buttholes; not calling any person a butthole, I am just clarifying - I have seen people here banned for less).


And Jon:

yes oh sarcastic one, we are still if you are serious about it, but my post was not a joke, but a trap, one you still fell into...bah, forget it - I'd just be wating my breath.

Beer for everyone!

*spikes beer with ex-lax*

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

A joke? Now I know not to take you seriously in the future.


-Fox

Okay, clearly those who do not see the reason why creationists argue with you besides because some people have the same resiliency as you in these arguments is rather integral to what they believe... Its also quite simple. Take away part of the Bible in which we believe... I mean such as the fact that the earth was created in 7 literal days by an all powerful being, then why not chalk the rest of it up to scientific fact? Noah's flood story? naw he got stuck in a puddle in a row boat with a couple o mosquitoes and his dog. Moses parting the red sea? Naw the israelites just waited by the sea til it dried up and then once they crossed there was a heavy rain and it filled it back up. Better yet the best selling most documented, least incorrect through generations of translation, book is completely and utterly false therefore shattering all that I and I'd say billion or so believe in. Give or take a million of course. If you believed in something enough and if that faith was based on something you hold incredibly dear to you and the very base of that faith was being attacked would you not defend it to your last? Oh wait you already are. And yes when I said 'you' I meant you Jon'C and you Firefox... Oh and I haven't forgotten about your response to my question I'll respond to it soon.

------------------
"So there I was completely naked and covered in tartar sauce..."

... Or you could take it the entire story as metaphor.


-Fox

Again, the overwhelming majority of scientists are religious (I would go so far as to say that the majority of scientists are Christians, but I don't have the numbers to back up that claim). These scientists don't have a problem accepting evolution as a reality, and even the Pope is willing to entertain it as a distinct possibility.

The people on this forum who violently refuse to accept the possibility of evolution are qualified in neither the areas of theology nor biology. You are laymen in every meaning of the word.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited March 08, 2004).]

So I'm still waiting on commentary on the original point Dor brought up. To those that think that the whole overthrust thing isn't punching a hole in the whole strata stuff (sorry, technical words lost on me at the moment), what science supports your thoughts?



Can not the claims still be valid, despite who says them?

------------------
Check out the following stories over at the Interactive Story Board:
The Never-ending Story Thread or visit the new webcomic version!
The Vision Cycle series
Featured Story: The Darkside Chronicles

Sure, but considering the source and my history with creationists, I consider what they say to be highly suspect.


-Fox

OK, so where's the detective work?

------------------
Check out the following stories over at the Interactive Story Board:
The Never-ending Story Thread or visit the new webcomic version!
The Vision Cycle series
Featured Story: The Darkside Chronicles

Fire, unfortunately suffer from a debilitating disorder known as ADD otherwise known as Attention Deficit Disorder.... You seem to have not the patience to read an entire post. Or you are inable to comprehend in the else you would have seen why the entire thing could never be classified as a metaphor. It is something that millions believe and it is a basis on mine and their beliefs. Think of a pyramid with Genisis as the base... Now fire huge cannonballs and other artillery shells at it until the base is crumbling. What happens to the rest of the pyramid? It begins to slump and fall over... Do you now see why it must be so that Genesis must be literal ? The more you turn that or that into a metaphor you may as well turn it all into one huge metaphor... Crumbling mine and others belief. I know this is not true. I believe in the literal 7 day creation. And that evolution is wrong through its inability to accurately determine the age of the earth. And since the literal 7 day creation is correct then I can confidently assume that Noah created a large ark or really large boat , and once completed got all passengers on board and then it began to rain for 40 days and 40 nights therefore incurring upon the earth a project such as Jon'C mentioned
So if this is one measurement and if there literally was a flood then would it not throw this measurement off by just a bit? If not by a whole lot throwing it off by millions if not billions of years?

------------------
"So there I was completely naked and covered in tartar sauce..."

Charlie, please do not insult someone by saying they have ADD. Perhaps you should invest more in reading about what God asks you in treating your neighbor than how he created the world. I'm going to take a stab and say that the latter was told to teach about the former...

[This message has been edited by Gebohq (edited March 08, 2004).]