What do you belive in, Creationism or Evolution?

Oh, one more thing: complexity doesn't necessarily indicate design. Simplicity might be a better criteria to judge that by.

 

Just like Carbon dating. Equally flawed.

I'm through here.

 

Saying that something is "equally flawed" to carbon dating is basically saying that something is not flawed.
Why do you consider cardon dating flawed? It had been used so many times as an argument against creationism (the ones with the 6000 year-old Earth at least), so your reference to it isn't coincidental, isn't it?

 

This is becoming a drag now. But I will make an argument here.


Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities. While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that.

Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth’s magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact. The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic.

 

To come back to the main subject, if we give this much thinking, rationalising, and effort on the factors proving creationism wrong, then we gather way more than enough evidence against it.

To once again derivate from the main subject, remember that carbon dating already proved itself accurately. If you estimate an age to 4000 +- 50 years, it's very accurate...
However, if you estimate an age of 5 000 000 +- 4 000 000 years, that's not as accurate by a long shot... but it's still enough for some proofs. In this particular example (which I made up), creationism is already proved wrong, despite the innacurate result. The smallest possible age is still a million years, which is way over the 6000 said in the bible or wherever that came from.

I often heard estimations of millions of years, thanks to carbon dating. In order to have creationism hold up after that, you need to have at least 994000 years of error margin, for a result of 1 million years.
In my school, we don't accept results when you reach a 10% margin of error.
For official results given by the most advanced research stations on Earth, I really doubt they'll accept results with a 99,4% margin of error.

 

EVOLUTION! We've got the fossiles and facts. Disprove that.

 

Read myprior posts.

BTW, OHSHC ROX!

 

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/

Carbon dating is not the only technique we can use, and we HAVE taken all these problems into account when using carbon dating. Typically, an archaeologist in the field sends multiple samples to be dated, from different parts on the same horizon in each site, plus other samples from other horizons. The amount of artifacts and remains available for dating is incredibly large as well, ranging from shells to bones to charcoal to dirt, depending on which technique you use. Believe me, dating techniques have come a long way since the 70s, or whenever the reports you read came from.

Also, the only time anything outside of earth affects carbon dating is during periods of EXTREME sunspot activity, or a large solar flare striking earth. Unfortunately, one such period did occur right around the time the Americas were being populated, so we can't rely wholly on carbon-14 dates for that. But it's kind of obvious we can't trust c14 at that point in time when one date says 12,000 years BP and another says 50,000. Regardless of these minor problems, the majority of dates obtained by this method check out with other methods and, where we have them, with ethnographic analyses.

 

Way to completely miss the point.
I was merely saying that, considering the sheer amount of time that has passed (because time is still measurable), an accident is quite likely to have occured at some point. Logic at its simplest.

 

both creationism and the evolution theory are right and wrong. They are right in the sense that their sources intertwine so much they both miss it, and can't see that they are so much a like. Their main sources and their core points are essentially correct in my opinion. But their hidden agenda's lead down paths of lies, and bring nothing but chaos to truth. They (as well as this threads voting choice) make people think there are only two options. But none of these theories can be prooven, whether you think they can or not, THEY CANT! It all comes down to faith and logic, in which logic really truly prooves both wrong anyways. It all comes down to an amount of technology I guess. We are reaching a point in which our own science could create another race of beings based on another chemical element that live and breathe, and evolve just like the way our's has. Whether they are or aren't (behind our backs) it doesnt matter. What maters is the order in both sources (Creationism and Evolution). As many of you have already heard before, both have a systematic line of events in which our universe was created (or at least lets minimize it down to this world). So in this sense they are very right and correct. But who created all these things? It was not us, for we were created last as the greatest creation of all. Why save the best for last? because of our creators evolution in technology and understanding in creating other life from itself improoved AS THEY CREATED! From fish to bird to mammal...to us! wHY NOT START WITH US? Because they didn't know how to make us yet, and soon learned through experiments with smaller life forms. Just like what our scientists r doing now.

So, who were these creators? U know. I dont think I need to say it.

 

So what is evolution's hidden agenda?

How does logic prove evolution wrong?

 

Well I'm going to say I'm more in line of evolution, but I don't like to think about stuff like this. No matter what there is going to be an argument about this.

Seeing as I'm more in line of evolution, I believe that people can back up their theories with convincing statements. The fossils and data can prove the reason why we look a bit like monkeys and so forth.

Creatism doesn't prove anything. They just say "God Exists" and expects to go "OH joy lets go to church now". There's no evidence or data to bac up their words, and no matter how much they try, they can't prove it.​

 

There are no monkeys in our ancestry at all, and there are no monkey-like creatures for quite a while (at least 10 million years, probably longer). We evolved from ape-like creatures, much smarter and much larger than monkeys and, luckily for us, more aggressive (otherwise, we would not have survived). In fact, recent DNA analyses show that Australopithecenes and Chimpanzee descendants could probably interbred for at least 3 million years (probably slowing down our evolution, and probably resulting in a sterile offspring, like a mule), proving that our ancestors were more ape than monkey.

But other than that, good point.

 

Oh yeah, sorry about that... makes more sense​

 

I know they think just because it's in the Bible or some Holy Book its true and then dont have proof of anything

 

Just want to say that just because you can't prove something is there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Quite a few Christians I know (myself included) have felt the presence of God, and although it's certainly not undeniable proof, I do think it is a little unfair for people to say "LOL dumb Christians they believe in something they can't even feel" because many do sense the presence of God in their lifetime. And before anyone says anything, no, it's not just in our heads. I know atheists who have become Christians because they could feel God. But of course if you're going to be picky, and want official, certified proof for every single thing, you're not going to believe in God. I wouldn't either.

Besides, is there any proof that God doesn't exist? Proof, not evidence. There is evidence to support both sides of the argument. But there is no proof for either side.

Sorry for getting off-topic, but I wanted to get that out there.

 

There is proof that there is no god in exactly the same way that you say that there is proof that there is (that was a terrible sentence ._.). Many people caught up in disasters or who witness terrible acts feel that there is no god. They know in their heart of hearts that there was no-one there and that the random act of violence and death was just that, random.

Mother Teresa herself said that she could not feel god, from all of the pain and suffering she had witnessed.

 

And some people know in their hearts that someone is there. I know it is hard to believe sometimes, especially when you're going through some really hard stuff. Even just a couple weeks ago I myself questioned if he was really there.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is that if God existed, everything would be dandy and perfect, which isn't true.

As for what Mother Teresa said... I think you know that's out of context. It is much, much more complicated than spitting out one thing she said with no context, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

 

No, but that doesn't mean it's plausible either. Russel's teapot applies.

Feelings can't be used as proof of anything. Do you think a muslim, or buddhist, or the ancient egyptians, greeks, didn't feel the same way? They can't all be right.

For all you know, it *COULD* be in your head. Not saying it is, but the human mind is a powerful thing. If it wants to believe something enough, you can be sure it'll seem like the truth.

When it comes to reaching the truth, only objective evidence can really be trusted.

The two are too close to the same thing. If you mean *absolute* evidence, no, neither side can prove their beliefs absolutely. And if you want to get that technical, we can't prove *anything else* absolutely either.

 

Actually I didn't. I was told that it was what she said and presumed that from the significance of the statement that she would not have said it lightly.

All I'm saying is subjective "proof" is never evidence. It can only affect one person, because they are the only one it has happened to. Hence why I rely on objective, independent evidence to explain the world around me. Evolution has that, religion hasn't.

As has been said before, people who say that evolution makes no sense obviously have never actual read into or studied it in any great detail. I suggest reading the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, it's a good place to start (I have just finished it myself today, moving on to the Extended Phenotype).