CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Creationism VS Big bang theory/evolution
What do you think holds the most logic, the big bang and evolution, or creationism.? I mean, some of you may even go for both, because both are possible.
I want answers to some questions please. Why has evolution elevated human intelligence so high that we can send satallites and pathfinders to Mars but yet other species aren't even smart enough to make fire yet? What i don't want to hear from anyone is the typical 'Oh it takes 37 billion years' reply. During the industrial revolution your precious evolution allowed moths to change color because the soot on the trees were not allowing them to camouflage themselves from preditors, so their wings turned black. Darwin's finches evolved very quickly also to deal with the surface of the ground. So why is the evolution of intelligence so one sided? Humans are responsible for the extinction of many species but yet evolution refuses to upgrade the intelligence of other life forms to protect themselves from our wrath. Why so one sided? Does intelligence not evolve for anyone but humans? Coming from your own mouths we were all dumb apes years ago, what is evolution waiting for, why can't I play chess with a horse yet? We're tearing down the Amazon yet evolution hasn't equiped those species with the intelligence to fight back. Why?
Why has evolution elevated human intelligence so high that we can send satallites and pathfinders to Mars but yet other species aren't even smart enough to make fire yet?
Because evolution doesn't necessarily select for intelligence, it selects for survivability. Trees don't need intelligence to survive. Most predators require some intelligence, but being stronger and faster is a better use of energy. Who do you think would survive better, a smart tiger or a strong fast one? Different animals have different ways of surviving, and ours happened to be intelligence, so that's what evolved.
You also have to realize that, although we are smarter than every other animal, we aren't that much smarter. I know you may think this is ridiculous, but hear me out. Do humans innately know how to build satellites and send them to space? Of course not. We have to be taught. The farther you go back in human history the less obvious our differences from other animals are. In reality we are only smart enough to be able to learn from others and occasionally come up with some original ideas ourselves. Luckily this worked out so that after thousands of years our knowledge eventually built up to the point where we can send things to space, and come up with explanations of how we came about.
During the industrial revolution your precious evolution allowed moths to change color because the soot on the trees were not allowing them to camouflage themselves from preditors, so their wings turned black. Darwin's finches evolved very quickly also to deal with the surface of the ground. So why is the evolution of intelligence so one sided?
Because the brain is really complicated. Evolving new colors is not a difficult thing to do, and we see it in many species over relatively short periods of time (depending on the time between generations). Evolving a completely different structure to the brain takes millions of years, not a couple decades. We've been on this earth for 4 billion years, and that's how long it took us to get a brain this complex.
Humans are responsible for the extinction of many species but yet evolution refuses to upgrade the intelligence of other life forms to protect themselves from our wrath. Why so one sided?
Humans were also able to wipe out populations of indigenous humans, even though the intelligence was equal. This argument is fallacious.
In addition, evolution doesn't work overnight. And the destruction that humans have caused has only been within the last thousand years...not nearly enough time for a species to evolve a completely reorganized brain.
Does intelligence not evolve for anyone but humans?
No. There are plenty of other smart animals: the octopus, the [crow] (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows.html), the dolphin and numerous other animals. Are any of them as smart as humans? Probably not, but humans are lucky because we not only have intelligence, but we also have language and tool making hands. This means that we can build things, and pass on knowledge to the next generation. Like I said before, this knowledge builds upon itself, until eventually we get to where we are today. This process of course took hundreds of thousands of years, so its not surprising that its taking other animals so long to "fight back".
Also, the reason you can't play chess with a horse yet is because intelligence isn't a factor that is being selected for in horses. When farmers breed horses, do you think they are looking for the smartest ones? No. They are looking for the strongest, fastest, best behaved ones to breed.
You say that evolution has no need to upgrade intelligence, that it is unnecessary for the other species. Well does that include the ape? As far as i know the ape is still alive and well. If we came from apes then obviously evolution had no need to add intelligence to them (us according to you) because they were doing fine surviving and they still are. And my major point was that we humans are destroying other species and the only way they could 'evolve' to compete with us so that we don't kill them off would be intelligence. How else could an animal that's nearly extinct because of humans protect themselves against us? Being faster & stronger won't do the trick. They need evolution to advance their intelligence before we destroy them, but evolution ain't doing that for them.
But the intelligence is only one example of how humans are in a class completely by themselves (not in a good way either) as far as evolving goes. If we came from apes why on Earth would we evolve into a species of suicide, alcholism, drug abuse, etc. That does nothing but harm our survival rate. And the biggest question mark of all, why on Earth would we evolve into a species that obsessively believes in a God that does not exist? What animal is there that would stop running from a preditor because they believe everything will be ok in a fictitious afterlife? People in here go on and on and on about how much damage religion and the belief in God has done to us. Well why has evolution given that God instinct to us then? From the most primitive to the most modern society we are innately born with this God thing that weighs on us. And if I buy into the scientific explaination of everything then that means evolution itself has given us that trait. Clearly that doesn't make sense. That is absolutely in contrast to what evolution would equip any species with. Humans are cut from a different cloth in so many strange ways. We are unique
Well does that include the ape? As far as i know the ape is still alive and well. If we came from apes then obviously evolution had no need to add intelligence to them (us according to you) because they were doing fine surviving and they still are.
Apes are amongst the most intelligent animals on earth, but their lifestyle apparently doesn't select for intelligence the way ours did. They do not possess language or the ability to pass down knowledge over generations. This requires more sophisticated brains. Part of what made us intelligent was an affinity for tool usage, language, and working in groups. Apes are much less sophisticated in this.
Being faster & stronger won't do the trick. They need evolution to advance their intelligence before we destroy them, but evolution ain't doing that for them.
Evolution is an untargeted process, meaning there is no intent or goal behind it. Further, it is a very slow process, especially for apes, because their generation time spans decades (Escherichia coli on the other hand has generation time under an hour). This means that for apes to evolve to a changing environment it takes thousands of years for small adjustments, millions to see what you got with us.
If we came from apes why on Earth would we evolve into a species of suicide, alcholism, drug abuse, etc. That does nothing but harm our survival rate. And the biggest question mark of all, why on Earth would we evolve into a species that obsessively believes in a God that does not exist?
Because evolution has no goal, and many mutations and traits are neutral, it's possible for strange behaviours to manifest themselves in populations despite the population being "fit." There is also something called emergence, where a lot of small processes can add up to something greater, in our case a biochemical brain outgrowing the genetic imperative and acquiring weird beliefs and ideas with little actual need for them.
What animal is there that would stop running from a preditor because they believe everything will be ok in a fictitious afterlife?
We would, apparently.
People in here go on and on and on about how much damage religion and the belief in God has done to us. Well why has evolution given that God instinct to us then?
Because our minds are very good at storing ideas, we can transmit them to each other and they survive even at the expense of the host. Ideas evolve too, to become good at spreading. The idea that there is an afterlife reward for believing is an emotional trick being played to keep the host invested in the idea. Later, ideas are added that suggest the outgroup "unbelievers" are untrustworthy, to keep the belief from being undermined.
The simple answer is that god isn't an instinct, but an idea that evolved alongside us and within us like how SIV evolved alongside and within the primates, "god" is a freeloader in our brains that survives using all kinds of attached ideas like punishment, reward, ritual, fear of knowledge, etc. all to protect itself.
It's all quite interesting, actually.
From the most primitive to the most modern society we are innately born with this God thing that weighs on us. And if I buy into the scientific explaination of everything then that means evolution itself has given us that trait. Clearly that doesn't make sense. That is absolutely in contrast to what evolution would equip any species with.
Evolution gave us the virus just as much as it gave us the cell. Evolution cares nothing for the individual life, but only for how a species might survive at the expense of something else. Why are there worms that must survive within us as part of their lifecycle? Why are there infectious diseases that kill the host and entire populations? Only because they can survive this way.
Why are there rituals that survive at the cost of life? Because they're good at exploiting us and surviving in new carriers.
well science has been wrong also. before, scientist used the theory that the universe was infinite to disprove gods creation of it and now we see that the universe had a beginning. creationism or coincidence?
i don't want to get deep in the debate but i think its a lot of both. i believe you cant go to god with your brain at the door. its illogical to accept god illogically. you must evaluate god with logic to prove what he says is true or false.
we have not proved that humans actually evolved form monkeys and that is not what scientist believe ether, that is some myth.
scientist believe we evolved form something similar to monkeys. like a ancestor to both monkeys and humans. from here its your choice to ether say that this is correct or that there was no ancestor species and just humans or not.
and also i believe in evolution to the extent of adaptation, that is evolving to your environment.
but evolving a mind with reasoning and mortality is some thing a creature who had no past experiences before hand is impossible. the creation cant be bigger then the creator. 2+2 cant equal more then 4. some thing with out a conscience cant just form one regardless of how much time you want to say it took to form one. nature, ruthless, merciless, unloving, uncaring, cant spit or evolve some thing with all these attributes. its impossible, we are so different and alienated form nature that it just looks like we don't belong and i think its because we don't. we weren't created like this world.
humans are the only example of a creature having emotions such as guilt and shame, reasoning and wisdom, and a morality that no onter species shows at all. so before i put my claims of god down to atheist science, i wont more proof, more examples of other species doing what we supposedly accomplished. and most of all, a non religious reasonable explanation of how and why i have characteristics that no other species has. not some hypothetical guess.
i mean scientist say its so illogical and unreasonable to believe that something greater created us that they will look for more confusing, more "out there ideas" of our existence. when i feel instead our crazy adventures for disproving god have in a way helped prove him.
and for the whole flat earth thing, that was a short lived thing made up by Asian religions and myths. no logical man thought the world was flat. they could see by the curve in the horizon and the appearing of a ships mast before its hull and like ways that the earth was curved. so give up your whole Christians are dumb cause they thought the earth was flat, and if even they did (like some may have) how does this disprove god? as i said earlier scientist believed that the universe was infinite, but we see its not so should i not believe science ever again? no thats stupid. theories change and adapt.
Well first,let me say this: I'm putting my argument on the side for creationism because it is losing by a lot!!! But I honestly thing that both are true. The Big bang theory,funny as it may sound,makes me valid points in it's explanation. I believe that the Big Bang Theory was actually the event that created God,not only the Christian god,but also the God(s) from other religions as well. Then, of course,it's obvious where creationism came in,in all of this.
So if the big bang is true why can't it be explained how lifeless dirt turned into living organisms.
the Bible says that god made adam out of Dirt from the ground.
Just a FYI human skin has been tested many times and the same conclusion occurs. Human skin is made of different elements of Dirt and minerals found in rocks and dirt.
Tell me again... Why do either of these oppose creationism? Would it not make sense that a God would have a way for everything to fit together? If God is a perfect being, wouldn't his universe be without 'plot holes?' I mean, think about creationism in the sense of writing. Creating a character is no different than creating a person. You must create the backstory, the mythology behind them, and the way they fit together in the scheme of things. Similarly, any plot points you create must be concrete. Consider that evolution and the big bang are the MEANS by which things happen and not the start. That's why this debate has always bothered me. They describe two totally different and unopposing things.
So if you believe in Big Bang or creation. I believe in creation. But where did all of the material come from if there was a Big Bang? Too many impossible answers for it to be a mere coincidence. Even if you do believe in Big Bang the chance of all living things and are planet and the Sun being a perfect distance away all of the things that require a perfect balance for life for it to be just lucky is impossible.
No one ever said that the universe came from nothing. We can't know what came before the big bang at present because its impossible to measure. Therefore when it comes to what came before the big bang science says "no comment."
As far as "the chances of everything being the perfect distance", do you know how big the universe is? Just in our own solar system there are 9 planets, so it isn't surprising that one fell into the habitable zone. That's not even talking about the billions of stars in the galaxy, or the trillions of galaxies in the universe. When you think about it that way, it would be surprising if life didn't arise somewhere. It just happened to be here is all, and that's why we can even have this debate. There are trillions upon trillions of other places where this debate is not happening because life didn't arise.
Hm, stories made up by people back when everyone thought the world was flat, and continued by people who tell stories for a living (preachers priests etc) with absolutely no proof and an obvious incentive to continue the charade,
Or theories based on actual scientific evidence from people who study for a living, and with absolutely nothing to gain by making stuff up.
Well, I would say you are replacing something extraordinary simple, a singularity that exploded because of an imbalance, with something infinitely complex, god.
I would say that, we observe our universe takes approximately 3 trillion years of expansion and cooling and allowing atoms to combine then allowing those things the atoms make to evolve, in order to make something with enough intelligence to ask themselves this question,
and I would say you are proposing none of this was necessary, as the ultimate intelligence had always existed.
Why then, bother with all of these trillions of years, if someone could have waved a wand - or what have you?
If we are strictly speaking of possibility, if there is an unknown it is impossible to say anything is impossible.
But imagining one had never heard of any god, and was thrust upon this earth with what scientific knowledge available to us, the idea of a god would seem quite insane.
Well... it's not immediately available... you have to try to learn stuff, and great minds have spent all their life learning more stuff to help those after learn that stuff quicker...
I mean, Einstein came up with E=mc^2 by thinking, studying, and random synapses which allowed the thought to occur. Cavemen did not understand that energy = mass times acceleration.
Why do the religious insist on cheapening the human mind so?
We tried to get as smart as we (some of us anyway, maybe you, but in general) are.
We died, tried stuff and died, tried different stuff and died, thought and died, came up with theories and died for being different, we set up entire economies with millions upon millions of people who only thrive on this thinking stuff, etc, etc, etc.
We have big brains... that's what humans have. Otherwise physically we are pathetic. A 90lb chimp could kill Randy Couture in a few seconds... we if you were not human if you look at it, we are not pretty. Cat's have fur, that's pretty, we look like shaved rats with smaller noses who stand upright.
We have nothing going on but big brains.
Yet, you insist we magically inherited this big brain.
That is not fair. All of our ancestors spent their lives handing this off to us, then most of the people on this site spent years upon years studying stuff.
we earned big brains, we were not immediately given knowledge.
Technically not if we were the first group of Christians. Protestants twist and warp Christianity to their own ends.
Catholics were not the first Christians, they were the first church to establish itself by killing out the competing, small churches which they deemed heretical. Ever heard of the Gnostics? Ever read about the early childhood of Jesus? Ever heard about Enoch? This is all stuff that they deemed as heresy despite it supposedly being divinely inspired.
Protestants twist and warp Christianity to their own ends.
So only accepting the word of the one true repository of Christian teaching (The Bible) is twisting Christianity? Catholics are the ones who sit on golden thrones preaching poverty and humility to the masses.
Only the Catholics and Orthodox Christians have the apostolic succession. Christianity isn't all about the Good Book. It's about tradition, and apostolic teaching.
The people who though the world was flat never read their bible if they did they would have known all along the world was round. If you look into Flat people they where for the most part non believers. Not all thought the world was flat Columbus didn't think so. The teachings of people actually thought the world was flat is less than you think it's that crap education that they feed you and believe it. Just like Columbus being the first to sail when it was the Norwegians centuries earlier but that doesn't make as good as a story as Columbus.
scientists have discovered facts about the creation of the universe and life on Earth, whereas creationism has religion to a god that to date ceases to exist
OK I think some things need to be put straight. Firstly, creationism is pure ignorance of truth and fact, we know beyond doubt (and not just beyond reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt) that the world isn't 10, 000 years old and that we weren't all created, as we are, by 'God' in seven days. Radioactive decay is proof that the earth is well over 4 billion years old.
Secondly, evolution has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, it is no longer a theory, it is scientifically accepted fact, there may still be a small amount of ambiguity as to whether 'survival of the fittest' is the driving force behind evolution, but none as to whether evolution is the driving force behind life - to deny just proves you really don't understand what your talking about.
Thirdly, most any argument as to why there 'must' be a god is usually circular logic; IE. 'there must be a God because the cosmos is so complex that it had to have been the product of a conscious mind' - by that logic then God itself must be infinitely more complex, and therefore must have been created by a greater 'God', and so on ad infinite. Those are arguments of logic, other arguments are just bred through pure ignorance and aren't even worth combating.
In summary; evolution is fact, creationism is based on an archaic system of beliefs that existed literally millenia before we had any reason to believe otherwise. The big bang theory is just that, a theory - no one is suggesting that is fact (if they are then again they don't know of what they speak). It makes sense because all the things we see in the cosmos coincide with the idea; IE. red/blue shift of galaxies, radiation decay etc. These things follow the theory of what we call 'the big bang' and there is no hard evidence to disprove it - however science, unlike religion, recognizes that it doesn't know everything and that certain things may be proved false in the future, the big bang is a theory and may be replaced by another when we have garnered more knowledge.
However it is completely irrational to attribute everything we don't know yet to God. Hundreds of years ago we didn't know what caused wind, waves or fire - so we reasoned that it must be a great god - now we know better but we still aren't advanced enough to answer all our questions, so we say that anything we don't yet have an answer for must have been God - unacceptable in this day and age if you ask me.
I must absolutely agree. Might I add: The circular logic does not hold up, because there are theories that make infinitely more sense than God that reduce this "Complexity" to a very simple system.
Scientist have proven thousands of theories throughout history. We found dinosaur bones. Proved the ice age was a reality. Life has continued to evolve for millions of years. I enjoy some of the stories portrayed in the bible, the majority of our constitution is based on the bible. Scientific evidence is always relied upon for criminal investigations leading to the conviction of an individual of a crime. If we cant believe in scientific proof for how earth was created then why do we rely on it for criminal convictions?
The big bang theory is not a problem for Bible thumpers it helps their arguement. Evolution is completely true but not macro-evolution. Species evolve all the time but species don't cross paths and become totally different species. Man coming from ape, pigs turning to cows, etc, those things do not happen.
The big bang theory is not a problem for Bible thumpers it helps their arguement.
No it doesn't. Biblical cosmology suggests a fixed space that was moulded outwards like hammering metal, this is the firmament.
Evolution is completely true but not macro-evolution. Species evolve all the time but species don't cross paths and become totally different species. Man coming from ape, pigs turning to cows, etc, those things do not happen.
Man IS an ape. We look superficially different, but we belong with the apes. Likewise, species diverge all the time.
What are you talking about man is an ape? We have 100% apes in the world and we have 100% humans. Why are there not 'evolving' 80% apes or 40% humans? Because something walks on 2 legs it is automatically our relative? WHat is the ape obsession lol
What are you talking about man is an ape? We have 100% apes in the world and we have 100% humans. Why are there not 'evolving' 80% apes or 40% humans? Because something walks on 2 legs it is automatically our relative? WHat is the ape obsession lol
An ape, specifically primate, is characterised by two pectoral mammary glands, fingernails, three kinds of teeth, stereoscopic and colour vision, opposable thumbs and joints that allow great freedom of movement, a flattened face losing the snout, and so on.
Put another way, if you study apes and humans, there isn't a way to distinguish them from us anatomically speaking. This was a problem when Linnaeus first attempted to create a systematic classification of life known as taxonomy. He lamented that he could find no critical distinction between us.
It's actually 98% and the other 2% is a big deal. Did you know that we are also 70% gene like to goldfish as well. If evolution is for real then why not more intelligent species besides us, and i mean like real intelligence not like Dolphins or training your dog, god like intelligence that we have because we are created in his own image? Why would evolution only pick us to be that way?
It's actually 98% and the other 2% is a big deal. Did you know that we are also 70% gene like to goldfish as well. If evolution is for real then why not more intelligent species besides us, and i mean like real intelligence not like Dolphins or training your dog, god like intelligence that we have because we are created in his own image? Why would evolution only pick us to be that way?
There were other intelligent species but we probably killed them out, or out-competed them for resources. Remember neanderthal and H. erectus? They are now extinct. An important tenet of evolution is competition for resources, this is where niches develop, but species that share a niche, like intelligent apes, will fight each other in most cases.
I think what your missing is the fact that most of the DNA we share with these creatures is "junk DNA". It's DNA that no longer serves a purpose, and doesn't produce proteins for a number of reasons (for example the start codons aren't there). In addition, evolution doesn't always select for intelligence, it just happened to be that way for us. A cheetah could just as easily ask: why can no other animal run as fast as me? Why haven't the other animals evolved this fast? The obvious answer is that they evolved other ways of surviving. Our own survival mechanism was a uniquely high intelligence.
If evolution is for real then why not more intelligent species besides us
There were. They were called Neanderthals and we killed them all.
Why would evolution only pick us to be that way?
The reason we are so intelligent is because of evolution. Evolution is not a biological Simon Cowell. We are the most intelligent species through luck. There is a misconception that evolution inexorably leads to intelligence. This is not correct.
99%, those number are so misleading. Do you also have any idea how high the percentages are for rats, chickens, pigs, horses? Not 99% but very high! The fact that all species are so closely related at a molecular level could be the fact that we all live under the same biosphere. Hell i've heard about certain comparisons done where humans are like 90% compatible with a banana
99%, those number are so misleading. Do you also have any idea how high the percentages are for rats, chickens, pigs, horses? Not 99% but very high! The fact that all species are so closely related at a molecular level could be the fact that we all live under the same biosphere. Hell i've heard about certain comparisons done where humans are like 90% compatible with a banana
Think of it like families. If you compare your DNA with your parents, it'll be a heavy match, but comparing your children and grandchildren, and so forth will have less and less in common with your parents.
Our genomes share more in common with animals the closer we are related with them, in other words the more recent it was that we split a shared ancestor with a modern animal descendant, the more we share with that modern animal. Evolution provides an explanation and model for this.
Ya, you know what, you're right. The numbers are very high. But you know what else? That's just ammo for evolution. They didn't get that high just randomly. It's because we originated from a common species.
Yes, but creationists will probably take this to mean that everything is made from the parts in God's big ol' tool chest, so it stands to reason they'd be similar.
Ape is not a species. Ape is a much more general term that is actually fairly ambiguous so scientists are beginning to try and phase it out. The term is a monophyletic one that applies to many primates including Chimps and Gorillas as well as humans. The reason that humans must be included in this category is because there is no feature shared by every other ape that is not shared by humans.
Really species diverge all the time? Name me one. You must certainly have something in your arsenal such as an article or study to back this debate.
Look at all breeds of dogs, descended from wolves. Their fur colour, style, and their body shapes all were evolved from a totally different ancestor. Cats are the same, so are Pigeons, Chickens, Cattle, Horses, etc.
Then we have cultivars of plants, like Bananas and Corn, all so heavily modified that you wouldn't recognise the ancestral species. We did that.
Just replace our artificial selection with natural selection and you have the mechanism for how dinosaurs transition to birds, for example.
The big bang theory is not a problem for Bible thumpers it helps their arguement.
If they are willing to accept that the Universe is very Old...then yes. Of course many of them don't.
Species evolve all the time but species don't cross paths and become totally different species.
They can and they have. We've actually witnessed new species coming into existence.
Man coming from ape, pigs turning to cows, etc, those things do not happen.
And where does evolution state that pigs turn into cows? It doesn't work like that. No living animal is an intermediate for any other currently living animal. All animals on earth today are the end of their respective evolutionary lineage. That being said both pigs and cows are descended from some other animal that is now extinct. The animals we see alive today are simply the tip of the iceberg, more than an estimated 99% of animals that ever lived are now extinct.
Their are old Earth creationists and new Earth creationists, each of which believe the universe is billions vs thousands of years old. I myself have heard good arguements on both sides of the fense so i'm not 100% sold on either view. One thing that is often overlooked when it comes to dating rocks, planets, etc, is that there is always a HUGE assumption that goes along with it. THe assumption is this; The rate at which things are churning today is the rate at which they have always been churning. As a made up example the continent of Africa is drifting by an inch every year so scientists will 'confirm' that rate per year. The rate at which uranium turns to lead is the speed of 'X.' So again they 'confirm' that rate.
But think about how unpredictable (since nobody was there) the consistancy and speed of developement could have been when the universe was forming. Think about cooking your dinner at a high boil and then lowering the heat to simmer. Who's to say that the rate of rock formation or the rate of anything was not at a super high boil at some point during formation and it is only resembling a simmer now. Surely it's not hard to imagine something at a much faster pace while it's being formed than after it has formed, that happens around us everyday. I totally could be wrong on this but it's possible. The fact is that when science dates things they are always making this assumption. The universe could be like a dropped bottle of soda that spent 30 seconds firing soda accross the room but now is only slowly dripping out.
One thing that is often overlooked when it comes to dating rocks, planets, etc, is that there is always a HUGE assumption that goes along with it. THe assumption is this; The rate at which things are churning today is the rate at which they have always been churning. As a made up example the continent of Africa is drifting by an inch every year so scientists will 'confirm' that rate per year. The rate at which uranium turns to lead is the speed of 'X.' So again they 'confirm' that rate.
This is known as parsimony and is a bedrock of science. Sure, there could have been Martians out there moving the continents really fast millennia ago, but without proof of that fact, it requires fewer assumptions to assume only a constant rate.
But think about how unpredictable (since nobody was there) the consistancy and speed of developement could have been when the universe was forming. Think about cooking your dinner at a high boil and then lowering the heat to simmer. Who's to say that the rate of rock formation or the rate of anything was not at a super high boil at some point during formation and it is only resembling a simmer now. Surely it's not hard to imagine something at a much faster pace while it's being formed than after it has formed, that happens around us everyday.
Unpredictable things can have a rate to their unpredictability, which can be reliably measured. For example, mutations which are random, over the vast stretches of time happen at fairly regular intervals and enable a dating method.
The thing is, all these dating methods, despite the assumptions they make, agree with each other.
With radiometric decay rates scientists have already considered the effect that the environment plays on decay rate. Only about 0.1% to 0.9% of the decay rate is even a function of environmental factors, the other 99.9% to 99.1% being purely the result of molecule structure and internal chemistry. Radiometric dating techniques already include a margin of error. But for the earth to be 6,000 years old and to get a date of 4.5 billions years would require that the radioactive decay rate to have been roughly 1x10^6 times faster than it currently is. This would be like a snail moving at it's current pace and then suddenly moving at light-speed. This is an error equivalent to mistaking a candle for the sun.
This is well beyond any rational margin of error. And without any concrete evidence to suggest that the decay rate was ever that high, we cannot help but dismiss this as wild conjecture. This is why scientists don't put much credence in the "the decay rate varies therefore the earth must be thousands of years old" argument. The decay rate does vary ever so slightly, but it doesn't vary by enough to give us a number that comes even remotely close to what they are saying the earth is.
True, scientists have determined the effect the environment plays on decay rates TODAY. But what was the starting point, what did each rock look like one year after the big bang? It is absolutely impossible to know what the starting point was. Yes you can be right and thousands of years can be wrong, but there is no way to prove that the radiometric rocks could not of all started off with vastly different amounts of decay but yet all be the same age. If a house blew up you would have partially fried bricks, bricks that were barely burnt and absoluety melted bricks. No scientist on Earth can do anything more than quess how similar or unsimilar rocks were in relation to one another after the big bang. Is it not fair to compare a house explosition to the big bang? No matter how much math you throw out a 2010 Corvette will look a thousand years old if it was on fire for an hour
True, scientists have determined the effect the environment plays on decay rates TODAY.
;Sigh;
While the actual environmental conditions vary, the affect the environment has on radioactive decay rate, does not vary. Why? Like I said before most of what determines decay rate is molecular structure and internal chemistry. Molecular structure of a carbon atom has not changed. A carbon or hydrogen atom today has the same structure as a carbon or hydrogen atom 10,000 or 10 billion years ago. Nor have the chemical reactions changed. The overall affect that the environment COULD play on decay rate has not changed for these reasons.
So for example. If molecular structure and internal chemistry are responsible for 99.1% of the decay rate today, and since we know that the molecular structure of atoms haven't changed, the absolute MAXIMUM affect environment could play would have never risen over 0.9%
But what was the starting point, what did each rock look like one year after the big bang?
There were no rocks from the big bang. Nor was the big bang an explosion.
could not of all started off with vastly different amounts of decay
The level of radioactive decay for any given substance at the moment of origin will always be 0%
If a house blew up you would have partially fried bricks, bricks that were barely burnt and absoluety melted bricks.
We don't measure with radiometric dating, based on what things "look" like. It's based on radioactivity, which decay rate will be the same for any object at any given time. It's a numbers game. It's pure mathematics.
We base the age of the earth on science, and Young earth creationists (YECs) base their age of the earth on guesses.
-Molecular structure of a carbon atom has not changed
-A carbon or hydrogen atom today has the same structure as a carbon or hydrogen atom 10,000 or 10 billion years ago. Nor have the chemical reactions changed
-Nor was the big bang an explosion
-The level of radioactive decay for any given substance at the moment of origin will always be 0%
It's amazing how you know these things. If this isn't guess work what is? Nobody was around back then. Science is studying the past based on the present, there MUST be assumptions made. I get it the calculations and patterns are so predictable and exact it's amazing, but nobody can ever know what took place between now and the big bang because nobody was there. And don't think for a second that your perfect scientific dating methods have not been proven wrong before. People have sent rocks to multiple labs and gotten variations in the ages (on multiple methods) that stretched millions of years. They have found hellium molecules in rocks that are "Millions" of years old but yet it is proven that hellium is so light it would leak out of these rocks in no more than a few thousand years. I would have to look into the exact details I came across this stuff a long time ago but make no mistake there are some shady scientists out there covering up holes in their precious theories. Jaw bones of an ape that have been sawed and shifted forward to resemble a human more to just name one that I remember. I do think there is a lot of evidence to suggest a very old universe but years ago i did see a debate or 2 with a few young Earth creationist and no they did not just show up with their King James Bible claiming that science is of the devil, they made some interesting points that really made me think. And under no circumstance did they even mention religion, only science. I'm actually uncommitted to either old or new Earth because I think both sides have made interesting arguements. And like ANY scientist BOTH of these groups make assumptions because none of them were there
If the molecular structure of an atom, or an atomic isotope for that matter was different then it wouldn't be the same element. This is how I know carbon atoms, or hydrogen atoms, or any other atoms have the same structure now, that they always did.
The Big bang was not an explosion, because the physical matter required to create an explosion did not yet exist.
I don't need to guess, because I have extensively studied this. Just because nobody was alive "back then" does not mean we are completely clueless to past events. I was not alive during the Civil war but I'm fairly certain M1 Abrahams tanks were not used in the battle for Gettysburg. Why? Because we do have a lot of information that has survived since then. The same is true of natural history. Instead of information in the form of written documents, we have information in the form of atomic radiation. Scientists are very clever in findings ways to study what was once thought impossible. Which is why nearly everybody who professionally studies the earth for a living seems to fall on one side of this debate.
If you're talking about Rutherford's experiments in the early 1900's, he got a date for his rock sample at about 40 million years. It was the leaking of the helium, that caused him to get a much YOUNGER date. Had the helium stayed in the samples he would have arrived at a much much older date. That there was an error in his experiment only supports an older earth, NOT a younger one.
Yes, mistakes are made, but when we find the cause of the mistakes and then we work to correct these mistakes we get a very old earth. Such as in Rutherford's case.
The fact of the matter is Young earth creationists, have not presented any evidence for a 6,000 year old earth. They have not developed any dating methods of their own. The evidence that has been provided shows an old earth.
Yeah but when it comes to evolution and creation you are not even committed to any certain religion, you are just committed to the concept of 'A God' no matter what in the world that might mean, an overseeing power, force, intelligence, whatever. You're less pot committed to any form of religion but yet people are still terrified to give any scientific credit to the theory that their may be a God. They seem to be afraid to be called a 'Religious Nut' as you put it. You don't have to fight religion to the death, if the concept of God makes sense in certain areas just admit it without the fear of advancing the spread of organized religion lol. I have arguements on both sides that I favor but most people seem to be too all or nothing. You're not a 'Religious Nut' if you say "Wow the big bang would seem to indicate some type of powerful creator." Even Einstein believed in a higher power, some type of God
You're less pot committed to any form of religion but yet people are still terrified to give any scientific credit to the theory that their may be a God.
People aren't terrified of god, it is seen as a poor idea that actually has no explanatory power.
You don't have to fight religion to the death, if the concept of God makes sense in certain areas just admit it without the fear of advancing the spread of organized religion lol.
"God" doesn't fit within science. It defies the naturalistic and parsimonious requirements of science and it offers no explanatory power, it merely replaces the question with another question.
You're not a 'Religious Nut' if you say "Wow the big bang would seem to indicate some type of powerful creator." Even Einstein believed in a higher power, some type of God
You're foolish if you think the only way to make sense of the most abstruse theory of our origins is to tack god on it and expect it to maintain itself under any kind of scrutiny.
The big question of life, how reality got here, is as should be expected very profound and quite frankly beyond the capacity of many people to truly understand. Small minds therefore choose to believe in a god figure because if they spent their entire life studying physics and cosmology they would still be unable to grasp the fine mathematical properties of our universe that allow it to come into being on its own from simpler forces.
I actually agree with you. Science and religion both have their work cut out for them to actually be able to point towards the source of this universe. But anti religious people who believe in science are left with the same huge unanswered question and they are simply swapping out words. Person A says 'God', person B says 'Evolution' or 'Science.' I can just throw the same arguement right back at the science lovers; You tack 'Evolution' onto everything and that has no explanatory power. What is the definition of God? God is just a term used to define a certain eternal power, force, existance, intelligence, etc. that is the driving force behind everything. Science only measures this reality; how does gravity work, how does the sun work, how do the bacteria in our guts digest food, and on and on. Nobody has a clue. Philosophically we are all chasing our tails with our explainations, we are all left with the same question "What is the driving force that causes gravity, the sun, life, etc." Some people say God and when a scientist says 'Evolution' he's doing the same thing as the religious person who is saying 'God.' They look at science for new proof on how life forms work and say "Oh ok, that's how evolution does it!" And person B says "Ok, that's how God does it!" They believe in God but the name of their God is simply evolution. They assume a theist is ignorant if they say an intelligent force is causing it, but they are saying the same thing, an intelligent force of evolution. If you break it down neither the religious or non-religious person is being foolish it is a very very deep question. Religious people don't have their heads in the sand (not all of them) they know what science is, but science measures things it does not tell you the source of them. I think people are just freaked out so much by the term 'God' that they don't even realize they too have a term that refers to God when they say evolution (granted they are not attributing any personality traits to the source but they are naming the source - which they too know nothing about)
But anti religious people who believe in science are left with the same huge unanswered question and they are simply swapping out words. Person A says 'God', person B says 'Evolution' or 'Science.'
This is where you have a profound misunderstanding.
Both groups have unanswered questions, and the ultimate origin of the universe is one of those big ones, but the critical difference between the religious and scientists is that a religious person merely asserts an explanation that has no grounding in perceptible reality. A scientist on the other hand must work with existing knowledge and piece it together to try and explain the answer to the question.
I can just throw the same arguement right back at the science lovers; You tack 'Evolution' onto everything and that has no explanatory power.
I don't think you understand evolution or what I mean by explanatory power.
Explanatory power means the ability to model a phenomenon and make a prediction with how it will behave. Evolution does this with the phenomenon of how species change over time. That is called explaining.
What is the definition of God? God is just a term used to define a certain eternal power, force, existance, intelligence, etc. that is the driving force behind everything
When you enter the realm of science you must justify each and every attribute you assign to something and you must show that it exists. The only thing that can be described loosely as you just did for god is the universe itself. The universe isn't a god however.
Science only measures this reality;
Reality is an all-inclusive term like universe. If you're trying to imply that god isn't in this reality then you're suggesting that god doesn't exist.
how does gravity work, how does the sun work, how do the bacteria in our guts digest food, and on and on. Nobody has a clue
You'd have a clue if you read a book on relativity, astronomy, and biology.
"What is the driving force that causes gravity, the sun, life, etc." Some people say God and when a scientist says 'Evolution' he's doing the same thing as the religious person who is saying 'God.' They look at science for new proof on how life forms work and say "Oh ok, that's how evolution does it!" And person B says "Ok, that's how God does it!" They believe in God but the name of their God is simply evolution.
You're making an argument from personal ignorance here. You assume that science cannot explain these things and that therefore there is no explanation and so science must be equally inept as religion.
A scientific explanation provides a model. God does not.
Religious people don't have their heads in the sand (not all of them) they know what science is, but science measures things it does not tell you the source of them. I think people are just freaked out so much by the term 'God' that they don't even realize they too have a term that refers to God when they say evolution (granted they are not attributing any personality traits to the source but they are naming the source - which they too know nothing about)
It's more the case that the answers that science is providing are too deep for most people to understand or even want to understand, so they remain with a comfy "god did it" because when you understand the universe there is a personal transformation that causes you to realise how fragile our existence is.
For the most part I respect peoples religious views. To me religion seems irrational and I don't need it in my life. I just don't believe in God and I don't see the need to.
Religion is not rational or logical.If there is a supreme being then why would it give us the ability to question its ability or powers? Why would it give us the ability to create laws suggesting that he doesn't exist? I.e. Evolution, big bang, gravity. I believe the big bang was the beginning of time and space and that it was a natural phenomenon.
You are saying "If there is a supreme being than why would it possibly..." Do you realize the philosophical error in that? If a supreme being exits it can do what ever the hell it wants regardless of your opinion or mine. As a matter of fact considering the fact that it's literally impossible to have everyone agree with anything in this world it is absolutely impossible for there to be a supreme being that does NOT cause millions of people to say "Why is it doing this, why is it doing that..." It is philosophically possible for the supreme being to be absolutely evil and be hated by everyone if you think about it. So I don't think you can ever present an arguement of "If there's a supreme being why would it..."
This is a tired debate and unfortunately it seems like common sense will never reign. "Creationism/Intelligent Design" (Whatever special names you make up) is complete nonsense. If a supreme being suddenly created man one day why hasn't it done anything else so spectacular? Why hasn't it created other creatures or scenarios? I always find it funny thinking of "Creationism" because I relate it back to the old Star Trek episode "Arena" where a supreme being made Capt. Kirk appear on a planet (with the cheesy futuristic "boing" sound) followed by the Gorn creature (and the cheesy "boing" sound) where a fight scene ensued.
Although the BBT has not been proved it has made more sense then most creation theories and quite a lot of religious people believe in the BBT as well but that god caused the matter to burst out which is true weather god caused it or it was chance we shall not know any time soon :) aside that there is more evidence that the BBT caused all that there is.
