The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet No I'm not going to provide a SINGLE method since it is important that ALL of them correlate - verify each other. Raddiometric dating was first proposed shortly after 1900 but didn't "get legs" until Carbon 14 dating, first proposed shortly after WWII, was checked against known dates, easily done since it's half life is roughly 5500 years.

You have proven my point! The half-life of C14 is only 5730 years. The total ABSENCE of C14 occurs in (roughly from memory) 50,000 years. Science claims to be able to extend the detection to 80,000 years with the addition of the mass spectrometer - I'll not even argue that for the moment. Therefore, anything with even a trace of C14 in it is, by definition, LESS than 80,000 years old!!!

Furthermore, C14 can only be used to date organic materials, and comes with a number of PRESUMPTIONS built-in:

1. The decay of C14 begins when the organic material DIES. While science can measure the amount of C14 present NOW, how can it know how much C14 was present when it DIED? The answer is to measure the ratio of C12 to C14. C14 is unstable, C12 is stable. But, science also does not know how much C12 was there to begin with, so how does it calculate anything? It ASSUMES that the ratio of C12 to C14 in the ATMOSPHERE NOW is THE SAME AS IT WAS WHEN THE SAMPLE WAS ALIVE.

2. Because the entirety of the calculations are based on atmospheric conditions that exist NOW, there is ANOTHER ASSUMPTION - that the cosmic radiation that PRODUCES C14 has remained CONSTANT throughout ALL TIME. This has already been proven wrong, yet conveniently overlooked when it comes to radiometric dating.

3. The magnetic field of the earth is decaying. Not only that, science says we have had a cycle of polar reversals in the magnetic field of the earth. The magnetic field plays a LARGE part in protecting us from cosmic radiation, and is hardly a CONSTANT. Scientists KNOW this FACT but conveniently IGNORE it when it comes to their religion (called evolution).

This is why we see a breakdown in the accuracy of C14 dating beyond 5-10,000 years. So, your only "proof" already comes with at least three significant PRESUPPOSITIONS. And, your inference that all radiometric dating methods "correlate" with each other is patently false. They give wildly different results, even with the SAME sample. The famous "petrified pickle" is a good example. The first C14 run dated it to 200 years. The second run, from a second sample of the SAME pickle, dated it to 7,000 years! It was actually taken from the basement of a woman who had canned it 50 years ago. This is why science must first GUESS at the age of the object to even DETERMINE which method is most appropriate to use!

Originally Posted by enorbet Creationists, by contrast, rely entirely on a very few nutjobs with zero credibility outside their own sphere and with good reason as you have demonstrated since the only arbiter for truth you accept is The Bible... any other evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

You make a lot of sweeping, universal statements. These "nutjobs" with "zero" credibility simply don't have YOUR kind of credibility. These are fully accredited and educated individuals, many of whom came from, and are still included in, the scientific community. However, you continue to try to discredit them simply because they disagree with you.

Originally Posted by enorbet However, it is indeed possible to prove that The Bible, including Evolution Denial, Genetic Entropy, Young Earth and the Parent of it All, "Intelligent Design" is pure Myth at best, with superstitious hogwash and political maneuvering at the core to mesmerize and control the masses.

Really? Then why don't you? Stop defending evolution and prove to me that the Bible is "pure myth" and "superstitious hogwash". You say it is certainly possible to PROVE it. Go ahead and give it your best shot. Oh, I forgot - 100% of your knowledge is supposedly filtered through the scientific method. This should be an interesting argument since, by your own definition, you have 0% knowledge about it.

Originally Posted by enorbet I've already noted the nature and evolution of The Standard Model.... you know, the means we landed probes on planets, comets and asteroids moving at unimaginable speeds in complex orbits, discover the Higgs Boson, Gravity Waves, and the computers by which even you can disseminate your pet beliefs to a potentially global audience just to name a few? Please do illustrate any practical advances made possible by so-called Intelligent Design and Young Earth.

Interesting bit of FALSE EVIDENCE here. Since when do space probes, complex orbits, computers, and all the rest depend on evolutionary theory? Where do they rely on the age of the earth to function? Guess who pioneered magnetic resonance imaging and invented the MRI machine? A creationist! Untold other scientific advances were and are being done by creationists. I, personally, have designed computer subsystems for the ISS. I don't recall ever having to consult the age of rocks or the mythical transitional fossils or any conceivable radiometric dating methods to design such complex systems. You are trying to (dishonestly) imply that creationists throw out all other science simply because they disagree with portions of evolution theory. You are blowing smoke once again. But, by all means, keep going - your credibility erodes with every post.

Originally Posted by OregonJim We are ALL destined for Hell, the first time we do something wrong. Nothing we do can erase a wrong. If you tell one lie, then live like Mother Teresa the rest of your life - you are STILL a liar. No religion is needed to KNOW that. Living a "good life" (by your OWN standards, not God's) doesn't cut it. Heaven is a place of perfection, like God. His perfect justice can't allow it to be tainted, by His very nature.

So, you believe that "perfect justice" involves eternal punishment for one wrong action? Judaism and Islam worship the same God, but neither teaches that.

He took upon Himself the punishment for our wrongs, in the body of Jesus, and in exchange, offers us the perfection of His very nature if we simply trust that He did that for us. His justice becomes satisfied.

A man commits murder. His mother says "I'll accept his punishment. Imprison me and let my boy go free." The judge says "Fair enough. 25 years for her, nothing for him." Would that "satisfy justice"? Any sane person would doubt it. Actually, the majority of Christians doubt it. The Penal Substitution theory was invented by Luther.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann So, you believe that "perfect justice" involves eternal punishment for one wrong action? Judaism and Islam worship the same God, but neither teaches that.

An offense against an infinite being by a person with an eternal soul requires an infinite and eternal punishment. And both Judaism and Islam DO teach that as well. The difference is that they believe they can make up for bad by doing good. One problem with that is that the consequences of that wrong have already been launched into the world, with infinite ripple effects. You cannot take back the consequences. Doing something wrong is not an isolated event. Even if the only immediate, visible consequence is a subtle change in your own character for the worse, it STILL has ripple effects in influencing later actions by the very change in your nature. Another example: Imagine the case where you back into someone's car, causing a little dent. You decide to leave the scene, unnoticed, rather than waiting around to confess your action. The woman who owns the car drives home. Her husband sees the dent, blames the wife, sparking an attitude of distrust, which becomes the first in a series of events leading to divorce. The divorce then causes one of the children to get into the drug scence, adopting a lifestyle of theft and violence, leading to a murder in a 'drug deal gone bad'. Your 'little sin' can have grave consequences.

Part of God's mercy is in not allowing us to see the full extent of this ripple effect that proceeds from even the most seemingly trivial sins. If we were able to come to that full knowledge, we would surely die of despair. However, it will come into full view on Judgement Day, and we will not only see the justice in an eternal punishment, we will AGREE with it.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann A man commits murder. His mother says "I'll accept his punishment. Imprison me and let my boy go free." The judge says "Fair enough. 25 years for her, nothing for him." Would that "satisfy justice"? Any sane person would doubt it. Actually, the majority of Christians doubt it. The Penal Substitution theory was invented by Luther.

Your analogy is not quite accurate. Imagine that the judge himself made the sacrifice, not the mother. And we're missing the bit about sancification - the judge would also have to have the duty of changing the murderous boy into a model citizen. The boy, in effect, becomes a "slave" to the judge. Would that satisfy your idea of justice? Remember, justice is a legal term, not a moral term. It implies a kind of balance, or equilibrium. We, as imperfect humans, tend to mix a bit of revenge and retribution into our idea of "justice".

The idea of "penal substitution" was not INVENTED by Luther, any more than the laws of logic were INVENTED by Aristotle. They were merely EXPRESSED by these men as a representation of universal truths. Penal substitution is understood by all mankind - what do you think pagan sacrifices represent if not penal substitution? Why do any of us vow to "make up" for something bad we've done? It is penal substitution. The idea of "karma" is another example of man's attempt to describe this universal truth that originates with God. Luther's explanation of the substitutionary atonement was nothing new - it simply reaffirmed what had previously been known and taught by the Scriptures, but had been perverted by the Roman Catholic church in an attempt to make money through the invention of "indulgences" and "purgatory". One of their cardinals was famous for saying "When a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs". Utter perversion. What all works-based religions fail to realize is that everything man does is tainted by sin. No amount of "good works" can make up for even the tiniest of sins. It took the blood of a perfect man, Jesus, who deserved no punishment, to take on the infinite punishment that we deserve and, in exchange, give us the infinite righteousness that only He posesses. He, in effect, bought us as slaves - yet He promises to treat us as brothers if we obey the commands of His Father just as He did.

Originally Posted by OregonJim You have proven my point! The half-life of C14 is only 5730 years. The total ABSENCE of C14 occurs in (roughly from memory) 50,000 years. Science claims to be able to extend the detection to 80,000 years with the addition of the mass spectrometer - I'll not even argue that for the moment. Therefore, anything with even a trace of C14 in it is, by definition, LESS than 80,000 years old!!! Furthermore, C14 can only be used to date organic materials, and comes with a number of PRESUMPTIONS built-in: <snipped a bunch of lies and half-truths debunked below --- see the original if you actually have interest in pseudo-science> This is why we see a breakdown in the accuracy of C14 dating beyond 5-10,000 years. So, your only "proof" already comes with at least three significant PRESUPPOSITIONS.

So much misinformation and partial truths! At the end of this section I will link a list of all the matter that C14 can date up to 50,0000 years old. I already linked a graph that showed agreement with other, earlier daring methods up to ~7000 years ago. That alone would debunk Life being created only 10,000 years ago unless God also created vast civilizations just outside and down the road from the Garden of Eden. However C14 is just the beginning. Different materials with longer half lives are used for older material. You can see an array here - Wikipedia - Radiometric Dating but it is worthy of note that

Originally Posted by Wikipedia-Radiometric_Dating Uranium-lead radiometric dating involves using Uranium-235 or Uranium-238 to date a substance's absolute age. This scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[13][18] An error margin of 2–5% has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks

and

Originally Posted by Wikipedia-Radiometric_Dating Rubidium-strontium dating method Main article: Rubidium-strontium dating This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.

While accuracy is verified vastly better, even if we assume an absurdly large 50% margin of error an item measured at 50 Billion Years would still be 25 Billion Years old at minimum. Compare that number to 10,000. For even greater scrutiny, since OregonJim hasn't said exactly how old he presumes Earth is, only Life, let's take Lucy, one of the earliest hominid fossils found, dated at ~3,200,000 old. Again if we assume an absurd error of 50% (when it is closer to 10%) that still dates a human ancestor at 1,600,000 years ago, a factor of 10X OregonJim's Bible interpretation.

Here is the list of matter that can be C14 dated accurately

Originally Posted by c14dating.com/int.html Charcoal, wood, twigs and seeds. Bone. Marine, estuarine and riverine shell. Leather. Peat Coprolites. Lake muds (gyttja) and sediments. Soil. Ice cores. Pollen. Hair. Pottery. Metal casting ores. Wall paintings and rock art works. Iron and meteorites. Avian eggshell. Corals and foraminifera. Speleothems. Tufa. Blood residues. Textiles and fabrics. Paper and parchment. Fish remains. Insect remains. Resins and glues. Antler and horn. Water.

Originally Posted by OregonJim You make a lot of sweeping, universal statements. These "nutjobs" with "zero" credibility simply don't have YOUR kind of credibility. These are fully accredited and educated individuals, many of whom came from, and are still included in, the scientific community. However, you continue to try to discredit them simply because they disagree with you.

You continue to ignore the focal point. It matters little that they disagree with me and I, with them. These people you have referred to as "accredited, educated, and credible" are ONLY accredited in pertinent fields from non-accredited Creationist schools. They have no credibility outside that miniscule sphere, not even in Popular Science, let alone Nature or arxiv.org. They are aptly identified as "fringe" and "pseudo-scientists" almost as out of place and time as a Neanderthal in Ancient Egypt.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Really? Then why don't you? Stop defending evolution and prove to me that the Bible is "pure myth" and "superstitious hogwash". You say it is certainly possible to PROVE it. Go ahead and give it your best shot. Oh, I forgot - 100% of your knowledge is supposedly filtered through the scientific method. This should be an interesting argument since, by your own definition, you have 0% knowledge about it.

Do we agree that Joseph Smith's claim of being given Golden Tablets by an angel named Moroni, resulting in the "divinely revealed" Book of Mormon was mistaken at best and fraud at worst? What is different about the Christian Bible? and do you read Ancient Hebrew or Greek? I, admittedly, do not but that does not bar me from denying circular logic and concluding that a book, written by a compendium of authors, based on myths from 3000 years earlier and first compiled nearly 100 years after the protagonist's alleged life and death, translated several times, and edited more than once, was not likely written by any such supernatural being. It is especially worthy of note that not even believers agree on it's interpretation and I see no evidence whatsoever to credit any one group over another with having the "inside track to the Truth".

Originally Posted by OregonJim Interesting bit of FALSE EVIDENCE here. Since when do space probes, complex orbits, computers, and all the rest depend on evolutionary theory? Where do they rely on the age of the earth to function? Guess who pioneered magnetic resonance imaging and invented the MRI machine? A creationist! Untold other scientific advances were done by creationists. I, personally, have designed computer subsystems for the ISS. I don't recall ever having to consult the age of rocks or the mythical transitional fossils or any conceivable radiometric dating methods to design such complex systems. You are trying to (dishonestly) imply that creationists throw out all other science simply because they disagree with portions of evolution theory. You are blowing smoke once again.

Don't try to sidestep the actual issue. This has to do with the Scientific Method which btw as I mentioned, The Bible, nor any subset of it by any sect, was not any part of the invention of the MRI. Several scientists are credited with fundamental work that led up to the final prototype which is credited to two men, Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield. I can find no evidence that either was a Creationist but I have no problem with the concept that there have existed actual scientists who, as products of their times, also believed in a fairly strict interpretation of the Christian Bible (or any other for that matter) and who were somehow able to keep those concepts separate. I don't understand it but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing it is very likely true. Evolution is only one aspect since much of the Scientific Method was already in place long before Darwin. It just accelerated after The Renaissance and Reformation.

FTR I also see that some who believe in Creation manage to keep that private and personal while others are on a mission, like you, and want everyone to be forced to accept their exact interpretation as The One True Way. It is my understanding that some who believe the Universe was created by a Supreme Being also believe that this entity also created Evolution as the mechanism for Life to survive change, adapt and grow.

You completely misinterpret my point of view (on purpose?) since you must realize that everyone knows that many early scientists were quite devout. I KNOW and have stated that all that believe in Creation are not also non-scientific, yet you call me dishonest. I have already mentioned Kepler and others and Georges LeMaitre, credited with formalizing what became to be known by it's derogatory term "Big Bang Theory", was in the employ of The Vatican yet when the then Pope tried to use it as scientific proof of God, Georges told him (paraphrased) to "keep to matters of Faith and leave Science to Scientists" so I know some keep these things separate. You, OTOH, seem affiliated with those that would have Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever name is the trick of the day, taught in school as hard Science when it is clearly and provably, not.

Originally Posted by enorbet While accuracy is verified vastly better, even if we assume an absurdly large 50% margin of error an item measured at 50 Billion Years would still be 25 Billion Years old at minimum. Compare that number to 10,000. For even greater scrutiny, since OregonJim hasn't said exactly how old he presumes Earth is, only Life, let's take Lucy, one of the earliest hominid fossils found, dated at ~3,200,000 old. Again if we assume an absurd error of 50% (when it is closer to 10%) that still dates a human ancestor at 1,600,000 years ago, a factor of 10X OregonJim's Bible interpretation.

You have not addressed any of the presuppositions I pointed out. You categorically dismissed them as "lies". Prove it! You continue to quote accuracy of dating methods as though they were hard fact. Adding a 50% margin of error to something which has no absolute reference to begin with is meaningless. And, you assume that Lucy is a human ancestor when it has been proven to be a relative of the gorilla, not man:

Scientists from the departments of anatomy, anthropology, and zoology at Tel Aviv University reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 104, pp. 6568-72, April 17, 2007) that the jawbone of the Lucy species (Australopithecus afarensis) is a close match to a gorilla's. The scientists concluded that these australopithecines do not have any role in being a modern human ancestor.

Surely, the peer-reviewed "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" is among your list of "credible sources". I also recall reading, in the same journal, that the bones of Lucy were gathered from a 100 foot radius circle and pieced together. They may or may not come from the same species of animal, but they certainly do not come from the same specimen. Therefore, any other conclusions are highly speculative at the very best. Assumptions, assumptions.

Originally Posted by enorbet Do we agree that Joseph Smith's claim of being given Golden Tablets by an angel named Moroni, resulting in the "divinely revealed" Book of Mormon was mistaken at best and fraud at worst?

Yes, for many reasons, one of which is the total lack of confirming evidence to support it.

Originally Posted by enorbet What is different about the Christian Bible? and do you read Ancient Hebrew or Greek? I, admittedly, do not but that does not bar me from denying circular logic and concluding that a book, written by a compendium of authors, based on myths from 3000 years earlier and first compiled nearly 100 years after the protagonist's alleged life and death, translated several times, and edited more than once, was not likely written by any such supernatural being. It is especially worthy of note that not even believers agree on it's interpretation and I see no evidence whatsoever to credit any one group over another with having the "inside track to the Truth".

Yes, I have studied ancient Greek for more than 8 1/2 years, and have more than a passing knowledge of Hebrew. But this does little to prove anything other than the fact that I can gain a deeper understanding of the original texts than most.

The "circular logic" argument is a non-starter. The Bible is not a single source, it is a LIBRARY of 66 books, penned by 40 different authors, collected from three different continents, over a period of more than 1,600 years.

Those authors are from diverse backgrounds - lawyers, doctors, judges, kings, fishermen, shepherds, priests, rabbis, tax collectors, and others. Curiously, none of them were professional writers, though a few were scribes (essentially secretaries).

To call it "circular logic" in referencing one book to another is to call Einstein's ability to reference Aristotle as "circular logic". There is simply no basis for an argument.

Further, the idea of multiple translations losing/adding throughout history is another fallacy. There is only ONE step of translation - from the ancient text in the original language directly to modern English. You can make up as many conspiracy theories as you want for all the intervening history - it all falls by the wayside because we go back to the beginning and translate directly (and I don't even need to translate at all much of the time).

And finally, as I already pointed out earlier, this "100 years later" myth is proven to be myth by even the most liberal and skeptical of scholars. These texts were written within the first generation, and circulated while eyewitnesses were STILL ALIVE.

Originally Posted by enorbet You completely misinterpret my point of view (on purpose?) since you must realize that everyone knows that many early scientists were quite devout. I KNOW and have stated that all that believe in Creation are not also non-scientific, yet you call me dishonest. I have already mentioned Kepler and others and Georges LeMaitre, credited with formalizing what became to be known by it's derogatory term "Big Bang Theory", was in the employ of The Vatican yet when the then Pope tried to use it as scientific proof of God, Georges told him (paraphrased) to "keep to matters of Faith and leave Science to Scientists" so I know some keep these things separate. You, OTOH, seem affiliated with those that would have Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever name is the trick of the day, taught in school as hard Science when it is clearly and provably, not.

Not only have you misinterpreted MY point, but you have added to what you think I believe.

I never claimed that there was anything wrong with true science. In fact, true science is completely compatible with Christianity. You seem to think (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that, because there is a God, then evolution must be false, despite evidence to the contrary. That is not true. I looked at evolution (for 40 years!), I looked at what God said, and discovered contradictions. While investigating those contradictions, I uncovered the plethora of assumptions made by evolution. That removes evolution from the realm of science and places it into the realm of religion. When comparing religion to religion, backed by the observational science subset of evolution, the creation account is a better fit. You are free to believe in evolution, but realize that you are making just as many assumptions as I am about the observational data. It is apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory APPEARS to exist for the sole purpose of denying the existence of God, since it goes so far as to make the incredible claim that life spontaneously generated itself, that matter and energy appeared out of nowhere, and came into being out of nothing, that time came out of (uh, what's this week's theory?), that irreducible complexity is something that just doesn't exist, and that order can spontaneously form out of chaos. One can "conjecture" that just about anything can happen given enough "time", since it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory (conveniently). A few billion years should make some of this stuff "smooth out". Yeah, that ought to do it. This is hardly science by any stretch of the imagination. It is pure religion.

With regard to your last statement, you seem to think that the purpose of education is strictly for the dissemination of scientific fact (which changes radically and frequently - go look at your own college physics textbook and have a good laugh). Our kids would be poorly prepared for life in society if that were indeed the case. What is wrong with teaching two competing theories and letting our children exercise their powers of intellect and reason? Why not let them hone their debating skills, and develop their ability for critical thinking? They may even be able to make a (gasp) contribution to science! You, sir, are in favor of indoctrination, not education. That produces mindless lemmings, not thinkers - and these lemmings produce the next generation of scientists (and politicians, and teachers), perpetuating the cycle.

Pope Francis: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With The Notion Of Creation'

Paraphrasing: "Just not evolution of the mind, that's my god\sin given!"

Religions evolve like slippery fish... (it's a disease, you can't be cured, let us meld you! Religious zombies!!!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol..._and_evolution

“The Bishop goes on to the human eye, asking rhetorically, and with the implication that there is no answer, 'How could an organ so complex evolve?' This is not an argument, it is simply an affirmation of incredulity.”

― Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

We use to hang people, now we don't.

Open Yale Coursses; Video for yale psychology, 10. evolution, Emotion, and Reason: Evolution and Rationality:
http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/psyc-110/lecture-10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMsQfgV07vU

Luckily law alone does not decide what the children must learn... unless you're in a caged society because your heads would explode if you knew truth or you'd rise up!? Many opinions few facts? Roger Dodger.

Originally Posted by OregonJim You have not addressed any of the presuppositions I pointed out. You categorically dismissed them as "lies". Prove it! You continue to quote accuracy of dating methods as though they were hard fact.

Actually I did provide at least 2 links, one specific to C14 and one wikipedia article for Radiometric Dating even though the burden of proof is on you since you are the one challenging current scientific data and means, including The Standard Model. As for lies and half-truths mixed with delusion, please read on....

Originally Posted by OregonJim Adding a 50% margin of error to something which has no absolute reference to begin with is meaningless. And, you assume that Lucy is a human ancestor when it has been proven to be a relative of the gorilla, not man:

<an unsubstantiated quote follows - see above>

Originally Posted by OregonJim Surely, the peer-reviewed "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" is among your list of "credible sources". I also recall reading, in the same journal, that the bones of Lucy were gathered from a 100 foot radius circle and pieced together. They may or may not come from the same species of animal, but they certainly do not come from the same specimen. Therefore, any other conclusions are highly speculative at the very best. Assumptions, assumptions.

Of course I respect the National Academy of Sciences but a very curious result follows. I spent just short of an hour googling for various iterations of "Australopithecus afarensis" including PNAS, NAS, Scholarly, etc and the ONLY hit I got referring to your quote was by adding "Tel Aviv University" which gave me ONE LINK to a report not from TAU, but allegedly about TAU in a report that appeared in The Jerusalem Post, essentially a Biblical-based Newspaper dated 2007. Every other link whether Wikipedia, Smithsonian, Nature, Scientific American and literally a hundred others (I stopped after the 8th page) notes that over 300 Australopithecus afarensis remains have been unearthed and studied and ALL agree they are hominids and early ancestors of Homo Sapiens. Even more oddly every article I found at NAS or PNAS regarding Australopithecus afarensis still to this day (2016) continues to support the actual evidence for Australopithecus afarensis as an early ancestor.

How curious is it that you skipped over the massive collection of responsible reviews and came to rest on the exceptionally rare article in a Biblically oriented Newspaper? Given your documented bias, I'd say "par for the course". Curiouser and curiouser, eh? Just for those who don't wish to take an hour here's a link to a current article from The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History.

Smithsonian on Human Evolution Evidence

and one from PNAS (2010) (there are several including 2003, 2007, 2010, and 2013, as well as NAS books on Google Books and Amazon, all in support of Lucy)

PNAS Data on Australopithecus afarensis

Originally Posted by OregonJim Yes, I have studied ancient Greek for more than 8 1/2 years, and have more than a passing knowledge of Hebrew. But this does little to prove anything other than the fact that I can gain a deeper understanding of the original texts than most.

Then can you confirm or deny that ancient languages from the dawn of the printed word, especially Hebrew, are difficult to translate since they require context? Also have you read a Bible in either language and where did you acquire it? The oldest Bible my family owns is a mere 600 years old.

Originally Posted by OregonJim The "circular logic" argument is a non-starter. The Bible is not a single source, <snip>

The "singularity" is in the fact that they were all evangelical believers. That it is a collection does not exclude them from each "proving the book by the book". Sundialsvcs has already pointed out the evolution of and contradictions within that book itself. That it is widely and wildly (mis)interpreted is an obvious fact given all the sects and offshoots that refer to it as their own.

<snipped a bunch of repeated baloney about "The Science of Faith". evolution and young earth, already debunked>

Originally Posted by OregonJim With regard to your last statement, you seem to think that the purpose of education is strictly for the dissemination of scientific fact (which changes radically and frequently - go look at your own college physics textbook and have a good laugh). Our kids would be poorly prepared for life in society if that were indeed the case. What is wrong with teaching two competing theories and letting our children exercise their powers of intellect and reason? Why not let them hone their debating skills, and develop their ability for critical thinking? They may even be able to make a (gasp) contribution to science! You, sir, are in favor of indoctrination, not education. That produces mindless lemmings, not thinkers - and these lemmings produce the next generation of scientists (and politicians, and teachers), perpetuating the cycle.

There you go! Now you've taken off the remaining bits of mask and fully admitted your agenda for others. You draw no line between opinion and fact, at least as it applies to you.. You seem to thinks schools should teach whatever hare-brained schemes anyone can imagine and not have any standards, let alone rigorous ones.... at least where the christian bible is concerned, or rather your interpretation of it. Then you denigrate the scientific method as "indoctrination" simply because it has standards that rule your accommodating concept of evidence as unsubstantiated bunk not fit for polluting the minds of any critical thinker. You are a dyed-in-the-wool ID guy that was dismissed in The Scopes Trial (circa 1929) and then soundly trounced in the Delaware trial I linked before. You're just a sore loser.

Originally Posted by enorbet Actually I did provide at least 2 links, one specific to C14 and one wikipedia article for Radiometric Dating even though the burden of proof is on you since you are the one challenging current scientific data and means, including The Standard Model.

...and nothing in your links addressed the presuppositions, which is why I asked AGAIN for you to address them. You seem to be saying "My favorite links don't mention them, therefore they don't exist".

Originally Posted by enorbet Of course I respect the National Academy of Sciences but a very curious result follows. I spent just short of an hour googling for various iterations of "Australopithecus afarensis" including PNAS, NAS, Scholarly, etc <snip snip snip>

Incredible. Not only do I give you a highly revered source (even for you), I quote the paper and give you the issue and page numbers, and you call it UNSUBSTANTIATED. What's wrong - don't have a membership in the NAS so you can actually READ it? Tsk Tsk. No wonder your knowledge of CURRENT science is incomplete. Then, instead of going to the source yourself, you spend an hour googling trashy sites to DISCREDIT YOUR ALREADY CREDITED SOURCE! There's a name for this, but I'll leave it to the reader's judgment to figure that out.

Originally Posted by enorbet How curious is it that you skipped over the massive collection of responsible reviews and came to rest on the exceptionally rare article in a Biblically oriented Newspaper?

I don't even know what newspaper you're talking about. I quoted STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE, not some newspaper. Apparently, you're not interested in actually checking it out. Rather, you spend all your time trying to dig up dirt, like a politician, not a scientist.

Originally Posted by enorbet Then can you confirm or deny that ancient languages from the dawn of the printed word, especially Hebrew, are difficult to translate since they require context? Also have you read a Bible in either language and where did you acquire it? The oldest Bible my family owns is a mere 600 years old.

And what does this have to do with anything? I have a whole library of ancient texts, including three copies of the Septuagint dating to the third century BEFORE CHRIST. These are modern, printed photocopies - I suppose now you're going to tell me that a photocopy is somehow inferior to the physical originals? Perhaps some crazed zealot in the museum that houses the originals has gone crazy with Photoshop? And, even in your "600 year old" family Bible (by the way, there AREN'T any 600 year old English Bibles - the first one was printed 481 years ago), less than 2% of the text is even under dispute by ANY scholars. Why don't you trust the remaining 98%?

I would provide links showing you the originals, from a variety of museums, as well as sources to get copies, but I've given up on showing you external evidence since you just throw it out wholesale. So go do your own research.

Originally Posted by enorbet The "singularity" is in the fact that they were all evangelical believers. That it is a collection does not exclude them from each "proving the book by the book".

Sorry, but they were not all believers, nor evangelical. Why don't you spend half an hour to get up to speed before you speak. You are obviously ignorant on even the most trivial points.

And, even the National Academy of Sciences frequently and profusely references other papers from its own collection. So apparently you have higher standards than the entire scientific community. Care to come down off your high horse, or shall I just continue? The truth doesn't care how high your horse is, so it doesn't bother me.

Originally Posted by enorbet <snipped a bunch of repeated baloney about "The Science of Faith". evolution and young earth, already debunked>

None of this has been debunked. Just because "you say so" does not make it true.

Originally Posted by enorbet You seem to thinks schools should teach whatever hare-brained schemes anyone can imagine and not have any standards, let alone rigorous ones.... You're just a sore loser.

Sigh. You didn't even get the message. You're a dyed-in-the-wool indoctrinationist, not interested in education but merely spoon feeding, just as you were spoon fed. Schools are for presenting IDEAS, educating our children in HOW TO THINK, and HOW TO DEAL WITH THE REAL WORLD. Schools are not simply a repository of information. That's what libraries are for (and even there, we find many competing ideas). You're afraid that our kids might actually use their brains, and decide for themselves, rather than believing in the RELIGION that you believe in (evolution). You are the poster child of the narrow-minded - you want schools to teach ONLY what YOU believe, and nothing else. On the other hand, I am advocating the free exchange of ideas, the antithesis of your indoctrination - yet you try to portray ME as the narrow-minded one. As far as being a "sore loser" goes, I have not lost ANYTHING - in fact, I've GAINED the most valuable gift I could ever have been given. Sorry to disappoint you on that.

Originally Posted by enorbet Now you've taken off the remaining bits of mask and fully admitted your agenda for others.

Ooh. There's that scary word again - "agenda". The liberal's magic wand - used to discredit any and all opposition when backed into a corner. I hate to disillusion you, but EVERYONE has an "agenda". It's otherwise known as a "point of view". I made my beliefs clear from the beginning, so this fictional "mask" you keep bringing up doesn't exist. How about we swing this back to the subjects at hand, rather than slinging mud? Or are you changing careers now from science to politics? I can go there, too, if you like.

Originally Posted by OregonJim ...and nothing in your links addressed the presuppositions, which is why I asked AGAIN for you to address them. You seem to be saying "My favorite links don't mention them, therefore they don't exist".

When data cross checks via several different methodologies for almost 100 years, and has yet to be falsified, it is not a "presupposition". It is a valid tool. Your insistence to the contrary is just part of your "scientists are liars" fantasy, necessitated by religious zeal and jealousy.... a desire to return to "the good ol' days" when the clergy ruled and had the right to murder peasants for minor affronts like not giving up right of way and forcing them into the mud and heretics, blasphemers, etc. were "a gimme".

Originally Posted by OregonJim Incredible. Not only do I give you a highly revered source (even for you), I quote the paper and give you the issue and page numbers, and you call it UNSUBSTANTIATED. What's wrong - don't have a membership in the NAS so you can actually READ it? Tsk Tsk. No wonder your knowledge of CURRENT science is incomplete. Then, instead of going to the source yourself, you spend an hour googling trashy sites to DISCREDIT YOUR ALREADY CREDITED SOURCE! You, sir, are the epitome of a bigot!

I did no such thing. I listed the terms I googled, and unless you consider NAS, PNAS, and "scholarly" trashy, the only trash is being typed by you. That said, I really should have typed in the volume and pages, so not only do I apologize to everyone for not doing that, I did it just now. Since you didn't provide the link, here is the exact URL.

Exact Volume and Page for Alleged Evidence for Evolution Denial

Anyone who cares to read it, or even just the "Discussion and Conclusion" and compare it to OregonJim's quote

Originally Posted by oregonjim Scientists from the departments of anatomy, anthropology, and zoology at Tel Aviv University reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 104, pp. 6568-72, April 17, 2007) that the jawbone of the Lucy species (Australopithecus afarensis) is a close match to a gorilla's.

will see that the similarity of the jawbone to a gorilla is just considered to be a possible avenue for deeper search and understanding of exactly what had evolved, how and when, not a refutation of Lucy's hominid status. Don't take my word for it. Go look! Thus the continued support of Evolution by NAS that I found and cited. The last line OJ has in the quote is NOT quoted from the text but added by him (or someone equally cynical and deceptive) since nowhere does it say

Originally Posted by OregonJim The scientists concluded that these australopithecines do not have any role in being a modern human ancestor.

That is a complete, tacked on fabrication and contrary to the conclusions actually made by TAU or NAS. In short, it is at the very least highly irresponsible and at worst, surely looks like a bald-faced LIE!

Originally Posted by OregonJim <snip> And, even in your "600 year old" family Bible (by the way, there AREN'T any 600 year old English Bibles - the first one was printed 481 years ago), less than 2% of the text is even under dispute by ANY scholars. Why don't you trust the remaining 98%?

To be perfectly clear, my family inherited that bible from my Grandmother who was Jewish. I don't read Hebrew or Greek so I only know it is not printed in English. I do read Middle English and some Old English and it is not in those languages either. The point in mentioning it was simple. I don't even know how one would go about getting documents that actually date to the time they originated circa 100 AD.

Originally Posted by OregonJim As far as being a "sore loser" goes, I have not lost ANYTHING - in fact, I've GAINED the most valuable gift I could ever have been given. Sorry to disappoint you on that.

I grant you that you have gained something since it is obvious that your beliefs are very important to you. I don't have a problem with that. My only problem with your beliefs is that you want to force it on others and pawn it off as Science when that is what you have lost, that legal battle over and over again because thankfully courts of law require actual evidence.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Ooh. There's that scary word again - "agenda". The liberal's magic wand - used to discredit any and all opposition when backed into a corner. I hate to disillusion you, but EVERYONE has an "agenda". It's otherwise known as a "point of view". I made my beliefs clear from the beginning, so this fictional "mask" you keep bringing up doesn't exist. How about we swing this back to the subjects at hand, rather than slinging mud? Or are you changing position from science to politics? I can go there, too, if you like.

The "mask" to which I am referring is your obstinate insistence on redefining terms to suit your agenda of getting scientific recognition for your faith at any cost, not the word "agenda". Now we can add "bald-faced lie" as proven above to that cost, much like the Jesuits defended "equivocation" during Guy Fawkes' time. At least you haven't stooped to attempting to blow up Congress.

BTW it is rather hilarious that you wish to pigeonhole me as a "liberal" since during college I ushered at 2 Ayn Rand lectures, voted Libertarian in three presidential elections, and was a subscriber to "The Objectivist Newsletter" for 5 years and "The Freeman" for 6 years. You can't pack me into a neat little box because my politics are not defined in such simplistic terms. In some areas I'm likely viewed as liberal but in others I'm further to the Right than a bicycle on the Autobahn.

Originally Posted by enorbet When data cross checks via several different methodologies for almost 100 years, and has yet to be falsified, it is not a "presupposition".

Data "cross checks"? Of course it does, when you start with THE SAME FALSE PRESUPPOSITONS EVERY TIME!!

You appear to be saying that the data is presumed factual simply because it has been tested over and over with the same results. Did you ever consider that the testing method is at fault? Of course not. Closed mind.

You rationalize away the presuppositions, rather than facing them. You CAN'T address them because you KNOW they are irrefutable. You simply BELIEVE the presuppositions to be true and are unwilling to ADMIT that.

Originally Posted by enorbet That is a complete, tacked on fabrication and contrary to the conclusions actually made by TAU or NAS. In short, it is at the very least highly irresponsible and at worst, surely looks like a bald-faced LIE!

Sorry, but here is what the paper you linked to actually SAYS:

Among extant higher primates, each species shows species-specific characteristics of the ramus. Nevertheless, the ramal configurations in those primates that we studied clearly fall into two groups: one consists of gorillas, and the other consists of modern humans, two chimpanzee species, and orangutans. [...] The ramus of an Australopithecus afarensis specimen discovered in 2002, A. L. 822-1 (Fig. 1), closely matches that of the gorilla.

Even a school child can draw the conclusion here: Australopithecus afarensis is from the gorilla group, not the human group. The study said that they were clearly separated groups. Hardly the "bald-faced LIE" you claim.

Originally Posted by enorbet I grant you that you have gained something since it is obvious that your beliefs are very important to you. I don't have a problem with that. My only problem with your beliefs is that you want to force it on others and pawn it off as Science

You are hopelessly confused. I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone, nor am I claiming to attach them to science. What I AM claiming is that macro evolution is NOT science, it is religion. My beliefs are in perfect harmony with REAL science, but not this religion that you cling to.

Originally Posted by enorbet The "mask" to which I am referring is your obstinate insistence on redefining terms to suit your agenda of getting scientific recognition for your faith at any cost, not the word "agenda". Now we can add "bald-faced lie" as proven above to that cost, much like the Jesuits defended "equivocation" during Guy Fawkes' time. At least you haven't stooped to attempting to blow up Congress.

Once again, you are hopelessly confused. Nothing has been "proven above", nor do you have any clue about my so-called agenda, even though I laid it out in black and white. And I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention Congress. Are we grasping at straws now?

Originally Posted by enorbet BTW it is rather hilarious that you wish to pigeonhole me as a "liberal" since during college I ushered at 2 Ayn Rand lectures, voted Libertarian in three presidential elections, and was a subscriber to "The Objectivist Newsletter" for 5 years and "The Freeman" for 6 years. You can't pack me into a neat little box because my politics are not defined in such simplistic terms. In some areas I'm likely viewed as liberal but in others I'm further to the Right than a bicycle on the Autobahn.

That may be. I used the term 'liberal' in the context of social values, not political, so the above is meaningless. In any case, it has become painfully and abundantly clear what YOUR agenda is. Pure indoctrination. No latitude in YOUR world for 'different' views. Germany tried that a few decades ago. Some of us learned that lesson - this time, we're NOT backing down.

Gentlebeings ...

Cordially, I suggest that there must be "a middle ground," both in what we teach and in what we (in various ways) preach.

Foremost, let's stop insisting on absolutes ... unless your religious belief is that your chosen Deity is "absolute" and you say clearly that this is your belief or faith.

Especially, let's stop saying that science is "absolute." It isn't, because it can't be. (The exploration of this very interesting division-line is a major concern of "the philosophy of science," but I digress.) We weren't "there when the foundations of the world were laid," whether we think of that "foundation" as a six-day event or a "Big Bang." Like it or not, every one of us is "but a flower in the field." (And none of us are Annuals. Sux.)

We've never seen a muon or a quark, although we might have observed "what we expected to see if such a thing were here or there." We pick up (what we think is an ...) "ancient, (possibly) humanoid fossil," and maybe we give it a scientific name that begins with Homo, but ... even so ... this is conjecture, and so is a very great deal of science! Science is a frame for our human exploration, and a venue for (we think ...) validation or disproval of those explorations. But: "it is a human frame."

Let's always acknowledge the human side. We have science, we have philosophy, we have religion. Perhaps we have these things precisely because we don't have absolutes. Each one of these has their own respected place and purpose in our human society, and maybe the very best thing that we can do for our kids (and, for our grown-ups!) is to present them in their place and with their purpose.

We should kick the doors open, not closed, for discussion and debate. We should teach our children about the respected social norms of the societies in which they now live, whatever those norms might be, but we should present even those social norms "in context." We should very much be teaching that there is a decision-making (and belief-making) process that they will use all of their lives.

And, if I may very cautiously say, let's lay-off on the "the eternal carrot or the eternal stick" business. Quite frankly, I seriously doubt that any one of us really faces "bezillions of years of torture" in exchange for at-most a hundred-plus years of utter screw-ups. (Even if we think that "our" book says so.) And, "your possibly-vehement opposition to that statement, if there be one, is respectfully and duly acknowledged."

If we really succeed in doing such a thing, our students won't have to think that it's unscientific to have a religious view, nor unreligious to have a scientific view, nor peculiar in any way to have all of these views at the same time ... without conflict.

Let's teach people about "the religious experience." Let's emphasize the validity of it, "alongside 'reason' and 'science.'" That it's okay to wonder. That it's also okay to pray. Let's speak openly about "hunches," "instincts," "epiphanies," and "still, small voices." Let's introduce our children*– and, our adults! – to the vast number of writings that other humans, who trod this selfsame road before us, wrote about these very same things. All of us will have these feelings, and they are not to be judged.

Let's teach our children also that, "sometimes, expressing your views too strongly, or holding too much onto them, can genuinely hurt other people, as well as yourself." Let's not present zealotry as "the only thing that we present to them." When they ask questions that question the beliefs and/or the scientific principles that we've taught them, let's not say that they're "wrong," which shuts down (and, condemns ...) the thought process.

Furthermore, I think, "it leaves them bereft," since one single of the three modes of thought cannot properly satisfy all questions and wonderings that a young (or, old!) mind might engage in.

The "accepted truth" in Galileo's day was Copernicus. When Amerigo Vespucci suggested that he had discovered "a continent," the accepted truth was Ptolemy. Einstein's observations contradicted – or, seemed to contradict – Newton's. Every single one of these people encountered massive human(!) opposition.

Let's teach our children – and, our adults(!) – about that.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Especially, let's stop saying that science is "absolute." It isn't, because it can't be. (The exploration of this very interesting division-line is a major concern of "the philosophy of science," but I digress.) We weren't "there when the foundations of the world were laid," whether we think of that "foundation" as a six-day event or a "Big Bang." Like it or not, every one of us is "but a flower in the field." (And none of us are Annuals. Sux.) We've never seen a muon or a quark, although we might have observed "what we expected to see if such a thing were here or there." We pick up (what we think is an ...) "ancient, (possibly) humanoid fossil," and maybe we give it a scientific name that begins with Homo, but ... even so ... this is conjecture, and so is a very great deal of science! Science is a frame for our human exploration, and a venue for (we think ...) validation or disproval of those explorations. But: "it is a human frame." [...] Let's teach our children – and, our adults(!) – about that.

Thank you for weighing in. This is what I have been saying all along, in as many different ways as I could possibly express it, yet our dear enorbet blindly denies all of it. Perhaps you can carry on this conversation with him, as I am tired of typing to blind eyes. Best of luck (to coin a phrase) - you'll need it.

And yet, this seems to remain your fight ... not mine.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs And yet, this seems to remain your fight ... not mine.

Maybe so. As (I think) I said earlier, diplomacy is not my strong suit. I tend to tell it like I see it and, if someone takes a certain tone, I tend to echo it back. That's a deficiency I'm working on. However, the truth is the truth, and I'm not afraid to defend it - but I'm done with sinking to the level of my "opponent"...

399 Pages... and the debate is getting more sensible and informative.
This thread deserves higher accolade than just a vapor from the heat sink.