|
|
Post by ZeldAClown on Dec 4, 2003 6:01:02 GMT -5
I’m 18. You could have fount that out on your own though, I’m sure.
You are the product of male and female sex cells that have undergone meiosis...combined, and began mitosis. Not a miracle. Reproduction is why you are here.
Fossil index and dating? That is a huge topic to cover. Well, if you really want to know how all that works, I suggest that you pick up and read a few geology textbooks, but I’ll try to explain.
First, you have to understand that dating is not an exact art. The narrowest time frame that we are able to pin something down to is about 20,000 years at any point in the fossil records.
First, we use the law of superposition. The idea that layers of sediment get older as you 'go down'. By using radiometric or carbon dating, be can ascertain the date of sediment layers to within a few million years. This in turns allows us to place that sediment into a geological era (such as the Carboniferous or Jurassic). However, this is a lengthy process...and while it will give you accurate results, it is unpractical to always use it in the field. So we look at fossils.
Fossils are dated in exactly the same way as sediments, so we know what kind of time range/era those fossils come from. For example...you know what dinosaurs are right? Well, look at the Triceratops or something...we know through dating that it was from the Cretaceous…so if you ever find the fossilised remains of a Triceratops, then you’ll know that the layer of earth you are digging in is Cretaceous.
Not all fossils are good for zoning though. For a fossil to be a good zone fossil, it needs to be geologically widespread, Short lived (as a species), well preserved and distinct in it’s characteristics.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocklord2004 on Dec 4, 2003 17:51:51 GMT -5
first of all we cant tell how old things are by measuring whats left of something in them because we dont know how much was there in the first place. second of all im a mirical because i have a pacemaker. the miracle part is that my heart is healing and in about 4 years i might not need it. now my cardiologist told me that this kind of thing doesnt happen. hence how i am a walking miracle. also i am 18 and have had a pacemaker since i was 5. im also a miracle because when i was in 3rd grade i got hit by a truck and landed on my head. the miracle part is that i have never broken a bone in my body. not so much as a greenstick fracture. so how can you tell me that this stuff happened with such amazing impossibilities and tell me that there is no god. im my own proof that god exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rauru on Dec 4, 2003 21:42:08 GMT -5
I know this doesn't really consist of anything, but I can vouch for rocklord on this. I have known him for a little over I think about 6 or 7 years and he's telling the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aramir on Dec 5, 2003 1:26:46 GMT -5
Ok guys, I'll put in my two cents. First of all, I am not ignorant of this subject. I have taken College Physical Geology, Historical Geology, Astronomy, and Biology, so I am well aversed in these fields. Zelda_Clown, I must say that I am impressed with your basic understanding of many of the concepts that these fields cover, however I would like you to question your own beliefs. I myself have questioned these things and have come to one simple conclusion. There must be a God.
Think about it. What does Science tell you about life? Life comes from somewhere. According to theory, our Solar System was formed from a cloud of dust, gas, and debris. These elements were sitting out in space. A shockwave from a nearby collapsed star hits these elements floating out in space. These elements condense, spin, and being to heat up. A disc forms and at the very center, a "Sun" forms. As the dust, gas, and debris, begin to spin, they come together and form planets, moons, etc, until all of this forms a solar system.
Now, our planets formed from all this dust, debris, and gas. Where did this dust, debris, and gas come from? Has it always been there? If so, then that's not scientific. Where did you come from? Your parents. Where did they come from? Their parents, and so on, and so on. Scientifically, something cannot come from nothing. The very notion is not scientific. Which is more logical to believe? That the universe was nothing at one time and just got bored and said "Hmm, I think I'll form some galaxies, solar systems, and planets" or..... That something did not come from nothing i.e. God made the universe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aramir on Dec 5, 2003 1:32:24 GMT -5
Oh, and by the way Rocklord, science does not say that life came from rocks. According to science, life came from chemicals in the oceans. These chemicals, under immense heat, pressure, etc., formed the basic forms of life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aramir on Dec 5, 2003 1:36:21 GMT -5
Oh and by the way, Zelda_Clown, there are massive gaps within the fossil record, that do not coincide with each other, which, of course, presents a problem. Once again, you do have a good knowledge of science, but I urge you to question everything. Freethought always says: "Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see".
|
|
|
|
Post by ZeldAClown on Dec 5, 2003 6:20:35 GMT -5
Hmm...it's about time that somebody who knows what they were talking about posted on here.
Rocklord (get you out of the way first): I'm sorry to hear about your unlucky life to date, and yes, it's amazing that you may one day lose your pacemaker. Many people don't. However, I myself have never broken any bones, and rarely fall ill. I have not taken a sick day off school/college for 4 years. You could say that i'm 'blessed', but I don't see it that way. I'm lucky enough to have gotten away with all this, while others haven't.
Aramir: Hmm...A call to reconsider my beliefs?...well, that's the first time that's happend to me. I do keep an open mind about almost everything, and i'll admit that on occassion, I have thought long and hard about there really being a god. However, after sometimes a week of pondering, I always reach the same conclusion.
Would you like to hear it? You would? Okay, here's what I think:
"It is wrong to say that god does not exist, on the basis that there are people who believe in him...however, that image that you all seem to keep in your minds, in my opinion, is where the only place he exists.
When you stop the think of what the human condidtion is, it is the persuit of knowledge. However....early man, with no understanding of how things work in nature, would try to explian the things happening around them.
A Caveman: "Oh look, there is a tree there! That's odd, it wasn't there last time we were here. How did it get there? Hmm...somebody must have put it there! Yes, that's the only thing I can think of, I don't know anything about germination or plant reproduction, so I must be right! Hmm..the guy who put it there must be a really nice guy. Lets say thanks to him everyday, and offer him stuff so that he will keep making us trees"
This mode of thinking of course led to the supposed, first basic gods. The god of the earth, the god of the sky and the god of the spirits. Over time, it's easy to understand, that these first gods would have undergone change as peoples knowledge grew. If God is indeed the creator of the universe, Adam and Eve, then why is it that the idea of there being a single god, a fairly new concept in human religion?
The bible: Did god write the bible? No, man wrote the bible. And do you think the bible you are reading today is the exact translation of the original? If you do, then you are a fool. One time when the bible probably underwent serious change was during the Dark Ages, the high ranking memebrs of the clergy lived in luxury, while the common people lived like filth. Science at this time was banned, so people had no choice but to believe. The church had massive power, and in order to keep that power, they needed people to do everything they say. To get people to do everything they say, they need respect...and a great way to gain respect, is to make the people believe that their lives ever afater depended on them obeying. Bibles weren't even written in a language that the common people could read...so any 'changes' would have gone unnoticed. This is where I think he whole, 'you must believe in god to get to heaven' idea comes from.
Chritianity, like many religions is flawed...it was made by people, for people. The ideas it upholds are valuable, i'm not disputing that, but we can see in everyday life that those values have become lost.
In conclusion, I stand by my beliefs on this kind of reasoning...as well as moral grounds. I don't think it's right to believe at this time. If there is a flesh and blood god, i'd rather hear the real story from him when I die."
....and as I said, I have thought about this alot. But it's good to see a fellow geologist on here ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ZeldAClown on Dec 5, 2003 6:59:26 GMT -5
Actually, here is something interesting for you to ponder.
Science and Religion are both one and the same:
Science is a form of religion in the sense that it requires faith. Religion is a form of science in that it attempts to expand knowledge and understanding.
Only they are in a total, and constant state of conlict. One is 'correct', but both are true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aramir on Dec 5, 2003 14:49:30 GMT -5
You offer some interesting ideas Zelda_clown, but your thoughts on Christianity and the accuracy of the BIble are erroneous. Although I have studied Geology and science in college, my passion (and major) is in History. The oldest manuscripts of the Bible predate the Dark Ages especially the New Testament. The Bible was initially copied, not translated. These monks and scribes who copied the Bible throughout generations were extremely meticulous. It literally took lifetimes to copy the Bible by hand. If there was even one mistake in the copies, the monks would throw out the entire copy and start again. They were extremely concerned with accuracy. The argument that the Bible has been translated incorrectly throughout the centuries is a classic atheistic argument that contains not actual evidence. Like so many things, it is simply a "theory" that they have.
I agree that the church was indeed powerful back in the day, however, the church wasn't changing the Bible to rule the people, because that would have had no effect (95% of the population was illiterate!). Only the clergy and a few of the wealthy could read. Most people could not read the Bible, and if they could they could not fhave access to a Bible, because they were so expensive to make. AND, according to the church, noone was allowed to the read the Bible except for the preists , because the church did not want common people findg out about some false things that they were teaching. Now, the people could attend mass at the church and the Priests could and did tell the people what he wanted them to hear, even if it wasn't what the Bible said. The priests, however, did not rewrite the Bible. A classic example of this took place in the 16th century. Johannes Tetzel was trying to sell indulgences to the people and claimed that the Bible justified it. This was a good source of income for the church. Martin Luther came along in 1517 and read the Bible and realized that, nowhere in the Bible was the selling of indulgences authorized. The church was powerful and they preached false truths, but they did not rewrite the Bible. If they had rewritten the Bible, then they would have wrote in some extra verses to support their selling of indulgences and other false teachings. The fact that they did not is exemplified by the fact that Luther read the Bible and found the truth.
Now that having been said, I will note that certain translations can and probably do have errors in them, especially modern translations. What is exceptionally dangerous is that some people are not translating or copying a Bible, but rather are paraphrasing it. Now, that is where extreme inaccuracy comes from.
The Religion and Science going together? Absolutely I believe that and I agree that they can and do go together. Here are two instances in the Bible in which science and religion go together. Under the law of Moses in the Old Testament, the Isrealites were commanded by God to circumcise their male children on the eighth day of their lives. At first glance, one would say ok, so what. What is so special about the eighth day of a male's life? Well, according to modern medicine (Science), on the eighth day, a male child possesses its greatest ability to clot blood. Now, how did the ancient isrealites know this? They didn't know anything about science. The second instance in which the Bible conincides with the Bible is in the book of Job. Job speaks of the Earth as being round. Now, I admit that Galileo, Copernicus, and others knew that the Earth was round long before Columbus, but the book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible, dating well into B.C., long before Galilieo, Copernicus, Brahe, or anyone. So, I totally agree that science and relgion (The Bible anyway) can go together. ANyway, I got to get to work, so peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aramir on Dec 5, 2003 14:52:24 GMT -5
Oh and by the way, I really enjoy this debate, even if we do differ in opinion. It helps me to question things (which is always a good idea) and to reaffirm what and why I believe the things that I do, and I would hope that you do the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocklord2004 on Dec 5, 2003 15:55:46 GMT -5
wow the iq of the debate just jumped. on little interesting fact that aramir left out was that when the bibles were first being copied they were not copied word by word. they were coppied letter by letter. each letter before that was then checked until eventually the full word was completed. after they would make their copy they would either seal and hide the original or destroy it. (cant remember wich one so i said both) also zelda_a_clown in responce to you never breaking a bone i would like to know how many times you have been hit by a truck. also i dont concider my life to have any unfortunate happenings. every little thing that has happend that could be called bad has had a blessing behind it. they have all shaped me into the person i am today. granted i have very little faith in the human race but i am working on that. my life has made it to where i believe in god to the extent that if i had to i would probably die for my beliefs. (granted i cannot prove this because nobody has ever put a gun to my head and told me to deny my beliefs but if they did i would like to think id take the bullet)
|
|
|
|
Post by Excel on Dec 5, 2003 16:51:07 GMT -5
Wow! Now this really IS a good debate. It's no wonder that ZeldAClown was Mr.Marsdons favourite student(He is the head of English at Soham).^^
I can't wait for him to reply to this. I wouldn't know how to argue against Aramir or rocklord if I tried. ^^;;
|
|
|
|
Post by renewal on Dec 5, 2003 17:59:12 GMT -5
I can not think of anything either. This is really a good debate. I love to see peoples opinions on this subject. Things just keep on getting better and alot smarter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aramir on Dec 6, 2003 2:14:44 GMT -5
I would like to be more specific on the my last post, for Zelda_Clown's sake. When I was writing about the circumcision of male children on the eighth day, I forgot the name of the chemical that allows you to clot blood, and I remembered it afterward. So, let me restate that part of the argument. On the eighth day of a male child's life (Maybe also a female, I'm not for certain), his prothrombin levels are well above 100. Prothrombin is what helps blood clot. After the eighth day, prothrombin levels return to one hundred and stay there and below for the rest of his life. Therefore, the child's ability to clot blood is better on the eighth day, then it will be for all his life. God commanded that the Isrealites circumcise their children on the eighth day. Whether or not you believe in God, the Isrealites practiced this. How did they know to do it on this day? They did not know anything about prothrombin levels. Coincidence? Possibly, but you know what I think ; )
|
|
|
|
Post by Aramir on Dec 6, 2003 2:23:14 GMT -5
Oh and by the way, I agree with Excel and Renewal. You are an intelligent individual Zelda_Clown, and I admire your solid, factual, arguments. When most people argue about this subject, they usually just throw out a bunch of brainless arguments that have no evidence to back them up.
|
|
