Originally posted by @kellyjayIf someone you see as an authority says that gravity doesn't not exist, do you believe it straight on? If this authority says that if you don't accept this 'fact' immediately, then you will be punished, and it is essential for you to believe in this punishment. Does this mean that you will believe in this 'fact'?
Why accept everything too, not all of people's facts are true, and we can be very mistaken
about what evidence means.
Or do you at some point ask fro evidence for this 'fact'?
Some believe in a flat earth. Some believe in an afterlife. Some believe in white race superiority. Some believe in other strange beliefs. And these people believe in this without evidence, only that their authority promise these truths.
I don't.
Originally posted by @kellyjayYes, I agree that if one accepts the premiss that diverse life forms got started in one swell foop about 6,000 years ago, then evolution need not have taken millions of years. But in that case, there need not be any evolution at all. Species are just what they are and change only minimally: e.g., a moth changes its color to adapt to a changed environment, but no new species ever occur. That would be consistent with a young Earth hypothesis and a creation myth.
You asked me not to change the subject, so I'm going to do it here too. We can come
back to dating, but right now we were talking about process of change not dates. Millions
of years are not required if the general populace of life was started fully formed, do you
agree? All of the changes after that would simply amount to change within the variety of
...[text shortened]... arm
blooded, plants, jelly fish, dogs, birds, and so on much of the work would be already done.
But that is not what the evidence indicates. The evidence is massively coherent that new species do in fact occur, splitting off from prior species, and that they are related in geneological orders, some deriving from others, over very long stretches of time (millions, not thousands, of years). The fossil records supports this contention massively. The fossil evidence very strongly indicates that not all life forms presently on the planet started at once, literally on the same day, but that different species appeared at different times over very long periods of time (millions not thousands of years). Moreover, the geological evidence very strongly indicates that the Earth was once inhospitable to mammalian life, that the activity and spread of some primitive life forms actually changed the environment such that it later became hospitable to mammalian life.
See, for example, the following article:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40948972
The only 'evidence' that all species were created as they are now and have only minimally changed since creation is a biblical account. It's not evidence, it's a story written by people who had a very rudimentary understanding of nature. On the internal coherence of the account, the book of Genesis has no more credibility than Homer's Illiad or Odyssey.
Now, if you want to claim that God placed those geological layers of petrified algae down there under the Australian desert 6,000 years ago, and that they only seem to be 650 million years old but are really only 6,000 years old, then you might as well believe that God created the universe 2 seconds ago and that the beginning of this thread never really happened -- it was all created 2 seconds ago. It's mad.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasWell the whole world is filled with people and they all have views. The views and beliefs people have should be looked at apart from those people who have them.
If someone you see as an authority says that gravity doesn't not exist, do you believe it straight on? If this authority says that if you don't accept this 'fact' immediately, then you will be punished, and it is essential for you to believe in this punishment. Does this mean that you will believe in this 'fact'?
Or do you at some point ask fro eviden ...[text shortened]... le believe in this without evidence, only that their authority promise these truths.
I don't.
Now some views will define those that have them it is the nature of views. Those who hate others for skin color, nationality, different religious views or non views are painted good or bad because of what is within them.
Other topics merely help justify larger beliefs, as God is or is not real or true.
When we debate those no matter what side we are on our foundational views are at stake. So how we define ourselves is always at play. Which is why some get reduced to belittling others thinking that some how strengthens their position or beliefs.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasWell, congratulations (I guess?) for having no courage to stand up for anything.
If someone you see as an authority says that gravity doesn't not exist, do you believe it straight on? If this authority says that if you don't accept this 'fact' immediately, then you will be punished, and it is essential for you to believe in this punishment. Does this mean that you will believe in this 'fact'?
Or do you at some point ask fro eviden ...[text shortened]... le believe in this without evidence, only that their authority promise these truths.
I don't.
Originally posted by @kellyjayDo you just say the world MIGHT be very old just to throw us off or do you sincerely believe it possible? The thing is, You have to admit we have fossils of human lines over a million years old, I hope you aren't one of those 'dates are fake' people. That is just one line of evidence. Others would be looking at geology, like this site with images of rocks bent 180 degress:
Well the whole world is filled with people and they all have views. The views and beliefs people have should be looked at apart from those people who have them.
Now some views will define those that have them it is the nature of views. Those who hate others for skin color, nationality, different religious views or non views are painted good or bad bec ...[text shortened]... e get reduced to belittling others thinking that some how strengthens their position or beliefs.
https://www.geologyin.com/2015/02/types-of-folds-with-photos.html
Think about those photo's, they are not photoshopped or some such you can walk up to them and see the formations for yourself.
Just think of the violence inherent in the bending and heating needed to bend solid rock like taffy, if it happened within the creationist time frame, a few thousand years max.
Think about what it would take, I don't think there are ANY processes that would leave Earth intact if that kind of formation happened in just a few thousand years, a blink of time in the grand age of Earth.
Rocks bending like that HAS to happen gradually and deep underground where the temperatures are high enough to make the stuff flexible like tough taffy. So that kind of thing happens deep underground, and then millions of years goes by before the stuff gets thrust up to the surface to be visible and cool enough to touch which those formations were CERTAINLY not cool when subjected to the forces necessary to bend solid rock like that.
Think hard about that, I hope it can convince you that humans are not worth the effort of a god to try to fool us by just manufacturing with god magic, all those rocks and such like the grand canyon (we have actual images from 150 years ago now compared to modern images there is VERY little change, and 150 years is a fair percentage of biblical time, look at the ratio, 6000 to 150, 600 to 15, 60 to 1,5, you can see that is a few percent of the ENTIRE biblical timeline with positive photo's from 150 years ago to now with practically no change, and geologists say the GC is something like 30 million years old.) But that is just scratching the surface, literally. Because underneath the GC is over a MILE deep layer of ocean sediment, all kinds of sea fossils going a mile or more deep UNDER the GC. Think about that, how many millions of years of steady dropping of dead life forms making extremely slow layer after layer for literally millions of years to make that stuff UNDER the GC.
I was saying, humans are not high enough on the spiritual totem pole for a god to want to make a planet with all those features in place at inception just to fool humans into just THINKING Earth was old when under that regime it is only as people deduce from the bible, that Earth is 6000 odd years old.
That is WAY too arrogant a stance for people to take that a god would ever worry about what humans would think about, and mind you, that only after 6000 years of human existence if the bible time line is true. So even if you think Earth 6K years old you would have to admit those rocks were there just more or less as we visualize them but at the inception of Earth. The arrogance lies in the idea that humans think we are SO far up the totem pole, that god would make us his special PETS. I don't think that is the case, I think Earth is as old as science says it is, 4.5 billion years old.
Originally posted by @suzianneWell, au contraire ma chère amie, if I wouldn't blindly follow authorities, it's then I have my own things to stand up for.
Well, congratulations (I guess?) for having no courage to stand up for anything.
Answering every question with "Goddidit, because that has my preacher said!" is not to standing up for anything, but to refer the courage to someone else.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasWho said that?
Well, au contraire ma chère amie, if I wouldn't blindly follow authorities, it's then I have my own things to stand up for.
Answering every question with "Goddidit, because that has my preacher said!" is not to standing up for anything, but to refer the courage to someone else.
Originally posted by @sonhouseI'd be willing to bet I am more open to acknowledging I am wrong about the dates, than any of you who think you know how old the universe is!
Do you just say the world MIGHT be very old just to throw us off or do you sincerely believe it possible? The thing is, You have to admit we have fossils of human lines over a million years old, I hope you aren't one of those 'dates are fake' people. That is just one line of evidence. Others would be looking at geology, like this site with images of rocks ...[text shortened]... 't think that is the case, I think Earth is as old as science says it is, 4.5 billion years old.
Kelly: "If life started with male and females, cold blooded, warm blooded, plants, jelly fish, dogs, birds, and so on much of the work would be already done." Yes, the work would all have been done, but the evidence is that life did not start that way. The fossil record very strongly indicates that the earliest life forms were simple, very simple — not males and females, not warm-blooded, not even multi-cellular.
Let me ask you this. What do you think fossils are? Do you think they are rocks which just happen to look like plants or animals, but there was never any real live plant or animal like that? Or do you think they are the petrified remains of something that was once really alive?
Originally posted by @moonbusSo the way you view fossils, makes you believe small changes in life over time in evolution can overcome any difficulty. You realize one may have nothing to do with the other? When reviewing the claims about small changes over time, it might be a good idea to limit what we are talking about to just those changes! For all you know each fossil is not an ancestor to any living creature, even if you got the times correct!
Kelly: "If life started with male and females, cold blooded, warm blooded, plants, jelly fish, dogs, birds, and so on much of the work would be already done." Yes, the work would all have been done, but the evidence is that life did not start that way. The fossil record very strongly indicates that the earliest life forms were simple, very simple — not male ...[text shortened]... ke that? Or do you think they are the petrified remains of something that was once really alive?
Originally posted by @moonbusI believe fossils were living creatures that happened to get put into a position where they turned into fossils instead of decaying away so we have some visibly into the past.
Kelly: "If life started with male and females, cold blooded, warm blooded, plants, jelly fish, dogs, birds, and so on much of the work would be already done." Yes, the work would all have been done, but the evidence is that life did not start that way. The fossil record very strongly indicates that the earliest life forms were simple, very simple — not male ...[text shortened]... ke that? Or do you think they are the petrified remains of something that was once really alive?
Originally posted by @kellyjayDid you study the photo's of the bent rocks? Do you seriously think they could possibly be bent like that in 6000 years? What gets me is people like Hinds can look at the Grand Canyon and then go, wow, amazing what you can do in 6000 years.
I'd be willing to bet I am more open to acknowledging I am wrong about the dates, than any of you who think you know how old the universe is!
Do you feell like that? You do realize those rocks didn't bend at room temperature, right?
If that tried to happen at room temperature, the amount of force on the rock would be a thousand times the force required to bend it when it is a couple thousand degrees F.
For instance, look at steel, try bending a 2 inch thick rod at room temp. Then try bending it when it is at 2000 degrees F. Get the picture? Rock is EXACTLY the same. And if somehow you were able to apply enough pressure to those rocks at room temperature, they would surely not bend, they would shatter. So you look at those kind of rocks and you can easily visualize what has to have happened to them.
Also, don't forget the mile deep strata UNDER the grand canyon, that had to have been layered in bit by bit hundreds of millions of years before the grand canyon was even a scratch in the ground.
Originally posted by @sonhouseGreat holes in the earth can happen slowly or rapidly just seeing one doesn't tell you how long it took to get there.
Did you study the photo's of the bent rocks? Do you seriously think they could possibly be bent like that in 6000 years? What gets me is people like Hinds can look at the Grand Canyon and then go, wow, amazing what you can do in 6000 years.
Do you feell like that? You do realize those rocks didn't bend at room temperature, right?
If that tried to happen ...[text shortened]... t by bit hundreds of millions of years before the grand canyon was even a scratch in the ground.
Originally posted by @kellyjayDon't let your religious training cloud you, look at the photo's and think how it could happen in 6000 years. They don't bend at room temperature, remember that. Think about the forces involved to bend rock 180 degrees in a space of 10 meters. The earthquakes would be devastating if all that were to have happened in 6K years.
Great holes in the earth can happen slowly or rapidly just seeing one doesn't tell you how long it took to get there.
I assume you looked at the photo's, right? And you know now there is a mile of strata deposited in an ancient ocean UNDER the grand canyon. Can you seriously think there was an ocean in Colorado 6K years ago? If there was, a mile thick layer in 6000 years say 6000 feet deep or so much life in the ocean that stuff comes down a foot a year? You know good and well the layers in the present oceans takes CENTURIES to even make an inch much less feet. Look at this link:
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/198_IR/chap_02/c2_6.htm\
It estimates sediment gets deposited about 20 meters per million years.
2 meters in 200,000 years. say 6 feet, one foot in 33,000 years, one inch in 2700 years.
So in 6000 years, about 2 inches of sediment. Think about that. You HAVE to know there are mile deep layers in lots of places around the world, like under the Grand Canyon. That rate comes out at about 8 MICRONS per year.
Don't let religion cloud your thinking about deep time. Really think about how rock can get bent like the photos show and the mile deep layers of sedimentation in the oceans and on land where the ancient oceans have been pushed up to become mountains. Think of the implications of all that having to happen in 6000 years, a mountain going up thousands of feet, say a 6000 foot mountain going up at the rate of one foot per year. You ever hear of such a thing? The amount of energy to do that would imply earquakes at a 9 level Richter scale would happen every day for thousands of years to do that.
Try to think of the implications of everything happening in the world we see to day happening a million times faster and the energy required to do that and the destruction that level of change resulting from that level if all that had to happen in 6000 years. Try to do some critical thinking about that.
Originally posted by @kellyjayWell, good; we agree on a crucial important point, that fossils are remains or imprints of things which were once really alive. What fossils show is this: different life forms appeared at different times. They did not all appear at once, at the same time, regardless whether you think life evolved or was created. The fact that some life forms existed at a time when there were no mammals contradicts the Biblical account, that all life was created at once. This evidence is compelling and no counter-evidence is. It works in both directions: a) there are fossil remains of organisms which lived when there were no mammals (there could not have been because the environment was inhospitable to mammals then), and b) there are now mammals but no living specimens of many very early life forms (such as trilobites). Trilobites are extinct, and they did not go extinct only in the last 6,000 years or so; if they had, we would be digging up their bodies in the topsoil, not their fossils from deeper down.
I believe fossils were living creatures that happened to get put into a position where they turned into fossils instead of decaying away so we have some visibly into the past.