Evolution vs Creationism vs Else

[scardella]

I know, I know...

I actually spent 5 minutes digging up my answer for radio-isotope issues...
[url="http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm"]How Carbon-14 Dating Works[/url]

Carbon dating is limited to ~60,000-100,000 years accuracy... It mentions that it can be used w/ other elements, though.

Short answer on radio-carbon dating as described by above:
1. Sun's rays convert some miniscule fraction of nitrogen into carbon-14 + hydrogen. Tests seem to indicate a stable balance between breakdown and creation, so the amount of carbon-14 is supposedly stable.
2. plants smell of elderberries up some c-14 via photosynthesis. animals eat plants... basically, it gets around in living things...
3. Once living things die, no longer pick up any more c-14, and w/ half-life, can figure out when it died.

[PadreSantiago]

looks like i'm the only one that believes in just plain ole evolution...I'm crazy like that. I'm not going to argue because i'm tired but here look at this monkey that learned to skate in 2 weeks:

[url="http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006040073,00.html"]http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006040073,00.html[/url]

If that's not a sound argument for evolution than I don't know what is....this article also includes a delightfully clever play on words in the first sentence:
"FORGET the Arctic Monkeys — here’s a REAL cool monkey."
AHAHAHAHHA

Edited January 25, 2006 by PadreSantiago

[Snarf]

The "caveats" of Catholic evolution are that:
You must believe in exactly two distinctly human parents that willed to sin.
You must believe that woman was in some way created from the essence of man (this is the one I find tricky, but not impossible).
You must believe that the original deception entailed the guise of a snake. (At least, that's what the Encyclical said dating to the 1940s.)
You must believe that all of humanity is the progeny of these two parents; that is, there could not have been a human diaspora before Adam and Eve nor seperate threads of homo sapiens evolution.

I think that's most of them.

I went with saying that I believe that God created the world knowing humans would evolve and then endowed them with souls (my whacky personal views are slightly different, but I won't hijack this thread). While this does entail what I would call "intelligent design", I don't agree at all with the consensus definition of ID that God steered speciation at every step of the way. Even if you don't agree with determinism as applying to psychological phenomena vis-a-vis free will, things were pretty well determined once the Big Bang happened. I think that God was capable of designing cosmogenesis in such a way that the planet earth would beget human life because his view is eternal and knows all contingencies. The problem with saying that God stepped in to provide each and every or even any number of genetic mutations that led to evolution is that it lends credence to the problem of the "God between the gaps".

Rather than saying that God let science do a little work and then stepped in to make adjustments here and there, I believe that God simply designed science itself to do all His work for Him.

[Desert Walker]

It must have been alien intervention. They must have....

[img]http://www.crystalinks.com/ancientastcaveart.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.crystalinks.com/ancientastronauts.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.crystalinks.com/alienscavemen.jpg[/img]

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Jan 25 2006, 01:58 AM']Rather than saying that God let science do a little work and then stepped in to make adjustments here and there, I believe that God simply designed science itself to do all His work for Him.
[right][snapback]865356[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well... there was a time when I held that view. It's really a very attractive notion. The trouble I've begun having with it is that "science" has become exactly what it was inevitably going to become, a worldview that includes in itself as "valid" data (valid according to its own criteria) MERE ideas about the universe, such as the transformist hypoothesis, that are not empirically verifiable; contradicting the very rules of the scientific method regarding valid conclusions about physicality. At the same time, the scientific worldview is unable, or unwilling, to admit its inability to verify empirically detectable "stuff" about the universe that is experienced in a transitory (to our empirical senses) fashion, such as "non-physical beings."

This presents a problem of limitation for the scientific worldview that increasingly reveals many scientists who hold it to be rather blunderingly strubborn in their inability to move beyond the merely mathematically verifiable data. What is astonishing is how vehemently these people support the transformist theory (which has really grown into more of a cosmology than its Darwinian father), in face of mathematical and other physical evidence that it is unverifiable according to the scientific method itself!

[scardella]

The funny thing is that if you take any serious portion of the bible seriously, it's rather hard to believe that God left evolution to be like clockwork, considering how much He tinkers with everything...

I could imagine God saying to Himself, "Oh, ok, let's split this sea here... flood there... exile these people for their sins..." etc...

[CrossCuT]

[size=1][color="FF6699"]I believe God created the world and people in his image, then let evolution have fun after.
Thats the jist of it.
[/color][/size]

[Franimus]

[quote name='Snarf' post='865356' date='Jan 25 2006, 03:58 AM']
Rather than saying that God let science do a little work and then stepped in to make adjustments here and there, I believe that God simply designed science itself to do all His work for Him.
[/quote]
I think I think that too, but I still voted #3 because if God created everything in such a way that specific things would happen, that's still God guiding every single step of evolution, He's just doing it beforehand... God exists outside of time and is omniscient, so this is very possible.

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='scardella' post='859766' date='Jan 18 2006, 09:27 AM']
Here, I'm not talking about a Godless/atheist understanding of evolution either, except where noted. I was just wondering who believed in a literal creation (humans created as humans, no macro-evolution) and who believed that humans were shaped via macro-evolution. Also, if you've got other theories or in-betweens, please share!

I've kinda been all over the place on this, and I'd like to hear people's arguments.
[/quote]




I'm a young earther .......A.K.A. 6 day creationist and proud of it.








INLOVE Jnorm