Your stance on the existence of everything , be it religious , scientific , or both

These days I tend to favour the view of subjective perception and interpretation of the universe. That is to say, human reasoning, sensation and experience is a thing that is only applicable to humans, and, in some ways, other animals that are genetically similar to us. Discrete bodies, time, etc. are all things that are being identified as mere human interpretations of the universe by modern science; as such I would argue that perhaps even our belief in the necessity of a creator is flawed, on the basis that we see things through a causal lens; there is no real proof that this is in any way reflective of the "truth" of how the universe works.

So, in short, we're here because we're here. Any sort of justification like "god" or "the Big Bang" inevitably leads us to the question, "what created the creator?" There is a certain illogic about that sort of approach,. This, of course, has been noted for hundreds of years in philosophy. Descartes envisioned god as a sort of infinite, perfect being that could not be understood in human terms due to that infinitude (which finite humans could never reach). This seems to be, in some senses, the most rational conclusion to make when facing the origin problem - though of course, much else from Descartes needs to be taken with an extreme dosage of salt.

But we've developed guns and brick walls. Intelligence clearly wins us against a big cat there.

Even less developed cultures have spears and arrows- clearly it's working pretty damn well.

Where were all of these things when Fred Flintstone invented fire?
If you take a good look at the technology of the Bushmen tribe in Africa , even their weapons can't fight off a lion.

ɹɐǝqıɹǝ , the way I see it , from the beginning of my life , I have always seen a creation , even when others told me that there is no such things as a creator (I live in a secular family).
In reality , everyone around me might not exist , and I might be an illusion created by myself.
My pain , my emotions , my thoughts , all of them are here and real , but my brain could be lying to me about what my sensory organs are saying.

Well anyway.. I am not going to respond anymore today.
I'm very sick.

As soon as we were able to control fire we got where we are.

Name a lion that'll come towards you if you're waving a flame around.

I bet the bushmen have fire.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

If you were to slightly damage the atmosphere , it would let in larger amounts of radiation , probably not enough to kill someone , but enough to make sure that humans die of a younger age.

Radiation doesn't make up the majority of genetic mutation , because there isn't much radiation coming through.
However , if you were to somehow destroy part of the protective barrier , that is our atmosphere , life would have been mutated.

You don't know the difference between solar radiation and what I believe you are referring to is some sort of stereotypical nuclear radiation.

Solar radiation, KILLS THINGS. It doesn't make them sprout six wings and a giant back penis.

Humans are the only animal that aren't subject to natural evolution , because of our modernistic rules and regulations , based on religion or politics.

We still evolve. We are just around the point where our brains are going to be whats evolving. You see, we force the world to evolve around us, and therefore, there is little to no natural selection working on the human species.

However , humans did indeed evolve.
A spontanious evolution , which occured very quickly when radiation leaked into the inner atmosphere , causing many animals to instantaneously evolve.
At first , you would probably expect the kids of shem ham and japheth to look really messed up.
But after a while , Semite dark skin balanced itself out , japhetic pigment loss balanced out (Albino looking to average white guy) , and hametic body features balanced out (asian eyes , yellowish brown skin).

Again, solar radiation kills you.

Exatly.. there are 100s of causes .
Chemicals , uv light , x-ray , genetic error , environment.

Living in a salty environment (Ark) would make Noah and his animals more opened to mutation.

They were only there for 40 days. Evolution takes millions of years.

If all continents were equally levelled out plateaus , and more water was stored in the air and in the earth , due to climate reasons , then a flood would infact cover the Earth.
Because of this massive weight on top of the crust , it would cause bumps to form , which caused mountains to be made.

No. Because there is no geological evidence for this, nor is there enough water on the planet in the first place.

Which one is the theory and which one is the fairy tale?

Ni ether.

Obviously Evolution is true , and abiogenesis is a work of fiction , which made by people who actively choose to not believe in a creator.

Tell that to Francis Collins.

You mean there wouldn't be enough biodiversity for life to evolve?
If radiation mutated genes , then 2 dogs would be enough to make a whole variation among the group.

No, not in a few thousand years.

I didn't say that humans couldn't evolve. By diversifying , we are actually still evolving.

Humans are the only animal that aren't subject to natural evolution

Yes you did.

Creating life , has been assured impossible by a 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000^2 chance of possibility.

Well, I don't really care what the probability is, but you don't have to wait all of those tries before it works. For example, people walk into a casino and can hit the jackpot on their first try, even though it's one in thousands.

Just saying, that's a funny thing about probabilities, regardless of the odds, sometimes the conditions are perfect.

Cells (Even simple cells) require billions and billions of things inside of it for it to function , that if you were to take one thing out of it , it would die or become cancerous.
Even watch Zeitgeist , which explains it.
Richard dawkins suggests that aliens seeded the Earth , but then it is circular reasoning , because the aliens would have no chance of evolving from somewhere.

He said they would have ultimately had to evolve.

It is my researched unbiased decision that I believe someone or something created the universe.

Of course it's bias, you think it was the Christian God, not Allah, Thor, Zeus, Apollo, or the Krishna do you? Why? Because you haven't even bothered with those.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

ɹɐǝqıɹǝ , the way I see it , from the beginning of my life , I have always seen a creation , even when others told me that there is no such things as a creator (I live in a secular family).
In reality , everyone around me might not exist , and I might be an illusion created by myself.
My pain , my emotions , my thoughts , all of them are here and real , but my brain could be lying to me about what my sensory organs are saying.

It's not a matter of your senses lying to you; Descartes, who I mentioned above, was looking for absolute certainty in his Meditations, and one thing he proposed was that humans could be deceived by their senses. I don't think this is the right term to use. Although we can by deceived by our senses, as far as our own human experience is concerned, the senses at a base level don't deceive us so much as they give us a limited and extremely particular perception of the world around us. Our brains operate in ways that facilitate our survival and flourishing in the environment that we experience. My proposition isn't so much that we're being "lied to", as we are incapable of seeing things "for what they really are", even though we may be able to understand them thoroughly in human terms.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

You don't have proof that it didn't happen , just evidence.

Right, and you have no evidence.

Umm yes...
If you leveled off all mountains and valleys , a flood could cover the world.
if the lower part of the crust was hot enough , the heat would force liquids up , causing a geyser effect , IE Rain.

How do you level out the whole world?

Depends how much radiation.
All animals can go a certain amount of radiation before dying.
In fact , we are being hit by radiation right now.
A higher dosage would indeed cause death , but only at higher amounts.
That is to say , if we got near fatal radiation hitting us , it would not kill us , but it would cause cancer and mutation within genes , enough to probably cause deformed or "Different" offspring.

Solar radiation kills you.

If a table has four legs , it must have evolved from a stool that had four legs.
If we are bipedal , we must have evolved from dinosaurs , not apes.
Many things argue against your logic.

I hope this wasn't serious.

If we evolved in Africa and are prone to lion attacks , we would need the strength , because there were much more tigers back then.

Lion = Tiger now?

Radio metric dating?
a comparison between naturally occurring isotope and a decay product?
Sorry , but nothing decays at a constant rate , due to the fact that everything at an atomic level is near impossible to predict.
And there are many forces at work that tell us why radiometric dating can't possibly accurate.

You can't go back in time millions of years to see if radiometric dating is accurate , and you can't test it in a lab , because the constant rate could change , due to unstable particles.

Uranium Dating.

I'm no physicist , but I do take the time to research.

If you were a physicist you'd realize everything about the flood you have said is impossible.

The chance that an animal will become a fossil is quite rare , and you are correct.
Also , the chance that an animal would became a fossil , and would resist millions of years of small vibrations and radiation , is likely 1/10^100,000,000,000 .

There were ALOT of dead animals. Also, where are your numbers coming from?

No offense , but that is rediculous.

I wasn't aware you could make that distinction.

organic materials aren't life.
For it to become living , it would have to assemble a simple cell together , which would be like forming a Twilight princess disc from nowhere.
But don't worry , I am still waiting to get another copy.

Organic implies it was once living or came from a living thing.

Biased- leaning to one side on personal opinion , rather than a smart decision.
Unbiased- Having no prejudice , when forming an educated decision or opinion.

Just the definitions in my own words.

You are a Christian and most definitely have a bias.

All the flood stories , the backstory behind canyons , valleys , SALT LAKES , etc.

All of those have explanations friend.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Something probably affected the decay rate.

Are you saying that because the measurements aren't compatible with our current theories and knowledge, or because you have a preconceived notion of what the actual truth should be and therefore any evidence that proves otherwise must be false?

If I could measure time by using a non-standard measurement (Which is what they use) , then my non-standard measurement may not be correct .
By default , any method of measuring time is not 100% accurate.

What exactly is a standard measurement?

We can measure 3rd dimensional objects with other 3rd dimensional objects.
But the way we measure the 4th dimension , is by using a 3rd dimensional object in synchronization with a 4th dimensional changeable concept.
It's actually pretty funny , because the observer (thats us or humans in general) are 3 dimensional objects going through a 4th dimensional "One way" line , yet we can't measure the 4th dimension , because we have nothing to compare it to.
You probably don't get the humor , but it is funny if you know what I'm talking about.

Time is not independent of space. Einstein gave us the notion of "space-time".

You don't know the difference between solar radiation and what I believe you are referring to is some sort of stereotypical nuclear radiation.

Solar radiation, KILLS THINGS. It doesn't make them sprout six wings and a giant back penis.

UV rays , and other different radiations that occur , wouldn't kill us , at least not if we have some atmospheric protection.
People in space have little to none.

We still evolve. We are just around the point where our brains are going to be whats evolving. You see, we force the world to evolve around us, and therefore, there is little to no natural selection working on the human species.

Our brains aren't going to evolve , because there is no natural selection among humans , because we artificially make a way for us to survive.

Again, solar radiation kills you.

Radiation is hitting us right now as we speak , and I'm not dying.

They were only there for 40 days. Evolution takes millions of years.

How would you know.
I can guarantee you that you are not above 110 years old.
If you haven't seen evolution take millions of years , then it would be better to say it most likely didn't happen , because there is no proof.

If I were to be hit with enough UV radiation , I will get a sunburn , and possibly get cancer.
If there is water around me and a roof above my head , the light won't hit me , but the radiation will still.

There is an easy bet that people who go through that kind of mutation , will be subject to more mutation among offspring , than someone who is protected by a good atmosphere.

No. Because there is no geological evidence for this, nor is there enough water on the planet in the first place.

Ice caps , clouds , air , ground , ocean , etc.
You don't realize it yet , but there is enough water to flood the earth , if only the earth was more leveled out.

They did a Noah's ark feasibility study , which pretty much proved it could happen.

Ni ether.

If one of them isn't backed up by solid 100% fact , then it is not fact.



Tell that to Francis Collins.

Yes you did.

No .
I said humans can't NATURALLY evolve.
They can evolve , just not naturally.
Like I said , we go by rules and regulations , based on religion and politics ,which makes it hard for us to naturally evolve.

Natural selection is survival of the fittest , where artificial selection (what humans do) is random selection , in this case.

Well, I don't really care what the probability is, but you don't have to wait all of those tries before it works. For example, people walk into a casino and can hit the jackpot on their first try, even though it's one in thousands.

Just saying, that's a funny thing about probabilities, regardless of the odds, sometimes the conditions are perfect.

I see what you are saying.
Because we exist , the odds were apparently in our favor.
But you are saying it from a human perspective , which is kind of biased.
Based on the odds , it's near impossible , but there is another alternative that doesn't have those low odds.

He said they would have ultimately had to evolve.

Yes , but there chances of evolving would be low too.

Of course it's bias, you think it was the Christian God, not Allah, Thor, Zeus, Apollo, or the Krishna do you? Why? Because you haven't even bothered with those.

I didn't say I was Christian.
I didn't say I wasn't a Muslim.

Does it matter?
Bringing religion into a debate about science is rediculous.
The fact is , there is most likely a creator , whomever he/she may be.

If you want to know what I religiously believe , then start a religious topic.

Right, and you have no evidence.

But I do have evidence , more so than people who claim to be scientists.

How do you level out the whole world?

I'm not saying "You" , but I meant as in if someone could.
If the Earth was leveled , all valleys filled , all mountains flattened , including sea valleys and sea mountains , then the world would be floodable.
Given those circumstances , The Earth would then become uneven , because of all that weight put into certain parts of the Earth.

I hope this wasn't serious.

Yes I was serious.
Okay , let me put it in ways you can understand.

"Crocodiles have many similarities with birds , therefore birds evolved from crocodiles"

See how strangely I put it?
They could have relative similarities , but that doesn't make them related.

Uranium Dating.

I have researched them. All of that still applies.

In fact , a living sea animal was dated to be thousands of years old , according to c14 dating .

If you were a physicist you'd realize everything about the flood you have said is impossible.

Funny thing , a physicist actually took part in the Noah's ark Story feasibility study.

There were ALOT of dead animals. Also, where are your numbers coming from?

A researched it.
Actually my number is incorrect , because I was understating the possibility.
The possibility is actually less than one out of a trillion to the power of a trillion.

Organic implies it was once living or came from a living thing.

NO IT DOESN'T.

Organic chemicals are carbon based.
Heck , even methane gas is considered organic.

An organic compound is any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon.
Natural compounds refer to those that are produced by plants or animals. Many of these are still extracted from natural sources because they would be far too expensive to be produced artificially. Examples include most sugars, some alkaloids and terpenoids, certain nutrients such as vitamin B12, and in general, those natural products with large or stereoisometrically complicated molecules which are present in reasonable concentrations in living organisms.

WIKI^

Pretty much , anything that can be produced by any living thing is organic , even if it is just a chemical and has no cells.
Even artificial materials are sometimes organic.

You are a Christian and most definitely have a bias.

I am biased because you think I am a Christian?
That is an insult to Christians.

All of those have explanations friend.

They have an explanation that fits in with your point of view , and they have explanations that fit in with my point of view.


I am seriously going to go do something else now , because I feel like I have been hours at this computer , sitting in the cold.

Are you saying that because the measurements aren't compatible with our current theories and knowledge, or because you have a preconceived notion of what the actual truth should be and therefore any evidence that proves otherwise must be false?

LOLZ you just made a logical absurdity.
"Evidence that proves otherwise"< HAHAHAHA

The measurements aren't compatible with scientific fact , because there is no accuracy for measuring time .

What exactly is a standard measurement?

From one point to another , it would take a ruler to measure.
Like a 3 foot wall measured with standard measurement ( a ruler or measuring tape) , would be absolutely correct.

However , a non-standard measurement would be like
"1 and a half of my arms equal the length of the wall"
Measuring something with something that is not solid.

We can't measure time accurately.
If 2 clocks (Measurements of time) were seperated , one being sold to a farmer , and one being strapped onto a rocket , the clocks will tick at different speeds , due to velocity.

In fact , clocks don't even measure time.
Clocks just count the number of ticks.
Each tick goes at a different speed , and cannot possibly add up to any measurement in time , because time cannot be measured.

Einstein even said this , or something like that.

Time is not independent of space. Einstein gave us the notion of "space-time".

I know , but 2 clocks that were built at the same time ,will function differently , due to the velocity that the clock is going in space.

Time will bend , and it would be impossible to measure a bend , or even a straight line.



Like I said , I feel very sick and I don't feel like responding , but

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

UV rays , and other different radiations that occur , wouldn't kill us , at least not if we have some atmospheric protection.
People in space have little to none.

You just claimed the atmosphere was distorted by the flood. There would be less protection.

Our brains aren't going to evolve , because there is no natural selection among humans , because we artificially make a way for us to survive.

Humans still evolve, there is just not any natural selection acting on us, therefore, all traits generally are passed on.

Radiation is hitting us right now as we speak , and I'm not dying.

Thank the atmosphere. You also aren't sprouting genitalia out of your shoulders, are you?

How would you know.
I can guarantee you that you are not above 110 years old.
If you haven't seen evolution take millions of years , then it would be better to say it most likely didn't happen , because there is no proof.

It's not a about proof. It's about evidence. You just make baseless assertions and claim they hold as much ground as scientific theories and fact, which they clearly don't.

If I were to be hit with enough UV radiation , I will get a sunburn , and possibly get cancer.
If there is water around me and a roof above my head , the light won't hit me , but the radiation will still.

Again, we'd be sprouting heads if you were right.

There is an easy bet that people who go through that kind of mutation , will be subject to more mutation among offspring , than someone who is protected by a good atmosphere.

Which radiation causes you to mutate?

Ice caps , clouds , air , ground , ocean , etc.
You don't realize it yet , but there is enough water to flood the earth , if only the earth was more leveled out.

No, there isn't enough water, nor is there any geological evidence to suggest this is the case. At all.

They did a Noah's ark feasibility study , which pretty much proved it could happen.

Were they high?

If one of them isn't backed up by solid 100% fact , then it is not fact.

I don't think you have even a remotely clear concept on what facts are.

No .
I said humans can't NATURALLY evolve.
They can evolve , just not naturally.
Like I said , we go by rules and regulations , based on religion and politics ,which makes it hard for us to naturally evolve.

Natural selection is survival of the fittest , where artificial selection (what humans do) is random selection , in this case.

What exactly makes that unnatural?

I see what you are saying.
Because we exist , the odds were apparently in our favor.
But you are saying it from a human perspective , which is kind of biased.
Based on the odds , it's near impossible , but there is another alternative that doesn't have those low odds.

We are both saying it from a human perspective because thats all we have access to. If something happened, I feel odds are irrelevant because people infer odds mean, you wait for 10 billion attempts until it actually happens, which that is hardly the case. It just means thats the probability for it happening, it could actually happen on the 2nd try, of the 156789th try.

Yes , but there chances of evolving would be low too.

Chance is irrelevant if it already occurred. Besides, how do you know what the probability of aliens evolving on a distant planet are? Exactly.

I didn't say I was Christian.
I didn't say I wasn't a Muslim.

Does it matter?
Bringing religion into a debate about science is rediculous.
The fact is , there is most likely a creator , whomever he/she may be.

If you want to know what I religiously believe , then start a religious topic.

Well, I am not aware of any other religion that believes in the flood, maybe your Jewish. No matter. My point is that you are clearly bias towards at least the Judeo-Christian lore. And yes, it does matter. Because you are approaching this from a perspective where you favor one thing over another with no logical basis.

But I do have evidence , more so than people who claim to be scientists.

You keep thinking that Einstein.

I'm not saying "You" , but I meant as in if someone could.
If the Earth was leveled , all valleys filled , all mountains flattened , including sea valleys and sea mountains , then the world would be floodable.
Given those circumstances , The Earth would then become uneven , because of all that weight put into certain parts of the Earth.

And how do you go about accomplishing that then?

Yes I was serious.
Okay , let me put it in ways you can understand.

"Crocodiles have many similarities with birds , therefore birds evolved from crocodiles"

See how strangely I put it?
They could have relative similarities , but that doesn't make them related.

What a glaring fallacy.

I have researched them. All of that still applies.

In fact , a living sea animal was dated to be thousands of years old , according to c14 dating .

Source? Tell me, how exactly are they not accurate? What about the procedure makes them wrong?

Funny thing , a physicist actually took part in the Noah's ark Story feasibility study.

Yeah, lot's of creationist 'physicists' do that sort of stuff. Ever heard of the rapid decay theory? It the creationist view on the magnetic field. It disregards basic physics of magnetism simply to fulfill a religious goal.

A researched it.
Actually my number is incorrect , because I was understating the possibility.
The possibility is actually less than one out of a trillion to the power of a trillion.

Where in the hell are you getting your numbers?

NO IT DOESN'T.

Organic chemicals are carbon based.
Heck , even methane gas is considered organic.

Yes it does. Organ-ism. Jesus.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Organic matter (or organic material) is matter that has come from a once-living organism.

I am biased because you think I am a Christian?
That is an insult to Christians.

You probably are a Christian, or a Jew. Fine be insulted, I am just saying that it's illogical to call yourself un-bias when you have chosen one faith over another for no good reason.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

You don't have proof that it didn't happen , just evidence.

dear god I swear every time I hear this my IQ goes down by five points.

I DON'T NEED ANY PROOF THAT ANYTHING DID NOT HAPPEN. THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AND IS ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE.

I can't prove that unicorns don't exist, I can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the world with his noodly appendages, I can't prove that we weren't put here by aliens yesterday and given false memories to think we've existed a lot longer, I can't prove that we don't live in some sort of Matrix-esque simulation.

I don't need to! It's impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. You don't get to say "well you can't disprove it so it must be true!" That's stupid!

also, evidence and proof are the same thing, scientifically speaking.

Umm yes...
If you leveled off all mountains and valleys , a flood could cover the world.
if the lower part of the crust was hot enough , the heat would force liquids up , causing a geyser effect , IE Rain.

DOES ANYONE READ ANYTHING I WRITE?

You completely failed to read the source I gave you! It explained exactly why this could not have happened! Not only is there absolutely no geological evidence that the face of the world changed in forty days, it's completely impossible anyway! It couldn't happen!

No , The theory of evolution is a part of Common descent , just as the theory of gravity can play a role in the easter bunny's existence.
Just because something is true , doesn't make everything it comes in contact , true.

I don't even know what you're talking about any more. Easter Bunny? What?

common descent is as much a part of evolution as is natural selection.

By the way , "Could" cannot form a scientific theory.
FACTS are what create a scientific theory.

FACTS. Exactly. Which is why abiogenesis is a good scientific theory. It accounts for all the facts.

Legitimate scientific theories are backed up by fact , because they are fact.
Philosophical ideas are fairy tail.

I guess it's a good thing abiogenesis is backed up by fact and not fiction then, right?

In science , a "Maybe" isn't an hypothesis , and certainly not a scientific theory.

that is exactly what a hypothesis is! It's a question. A "maybe." A "could have happened." Then we find evidence to back up the hypothesis and we have a theory.

there are no absolutes in science.

Depends how much radiation.
All animals can go a certain amount of radiation before dying.
In fact , we are being hit by radiation right now.

every time you turn on a light bulb you expose yourself to electromagnetic radiation.

it doesn't do much to you though. The only actual ionizing radiation (the kind that can kill or mutate) you are exposed to is called ultraviolet; it comes from the sun. You know what it does? Gives you sunburn.

the thing about radiation is that it is more likely to kill cells than to mutate them. Most mutations that do happen don't do anything. Those that do something are usually harmful.

A higher dosage would indeed cause death , but only at higher amounts.
That is to say , if we got near fatal radiation hitting us , it would not kill us , but it would cause cancer and mutation within genes , enough to probably cause deformed or "Different" offspring.

I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

If a table has four legs , it must have evolved from a stool that had four legs.

inanimate objects don't evolve!

If we are bipedal , we must have evolved from dinosaurs , not apes.

bipedalism isn't a taxonomic family!

Many things argue against your logic.

it's not "my logic" it's taxonomic classification! We're in the great ape family. You don't just evolve into a family that you didn't evolve out of. A non-ape cannot evolve into an ape unless it's the very first animal to be classified as an ape. So humans either evolved from apes (which has been proven) or we are the very first animals to be classified as apes (which is stupid). We couldn't evolve from a non-ape and suddenly become an ape. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Radio metric dating?
a comparison between naturally occurring isotope and a decay product?
Sorry , but nothing decays at a constant rate , due to the fact that everything at an atomic level is near impossible to predict.
And there are many forces at work that tell us why radiometric dating can't possibly accurate.

You can't go back in time millions of years to see if radiometric dating is accurate , and you can't test it in a lab , because the constant rate could change , due to unstable particles.

SOURCE?

can't just pull facts out of your arse, buddy.

I'm no physicist , but I do take the time to research.

that's funny, because I haven't seen you do any real research at all. Sounds to me like you're just making it up as you go along.

The chance that an animal will become a fossil is quite rare , and you are correct.
Also , the chance that an animal would became a fossil , and would resist millions of years of small vibrations and radiation , is likely 1/10^100,000,000,000 .

don't post a number if you don't have a source to back it up!

We can't prove when life was formed , yet we know when , because we exist?

I was making fun of the way you worded your post! I was saying that the chances life formed must be 100% because obviously life is here! If life exists it must have formed somehow.

and we can prove when life was formed! The earliest known life on Earth (according to radiometric dated fossils) is around three and a half billions years old.

organic materials aren't life.

organic materials are what life is made of.

For it to become living , it would have to assemble a simple cell together , which would be like forming a Twilight princess disc from nowhere.

no it wouldn't! Unless you have a source to back this nonsense up?

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

The fact is , we have fossils , which would most likely not exist if it had been for millions of years.

the fact is, if the Earth hadn't been around for millions of years we wouldn't have fossils millions of years old!

The older the Earth is the more fossils we're likely to find, actually, because more have time to form.

So... we lost natural brute strength?
Where did it go?
"UHG , me no need big muscles no more!"
Even if they didn't need the strength , there is still no way to say that we lost that strength to lift cars , because it seems rediculous to me.

you don't understand how evolution works at all!

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Our bodies favour speed rather than muscle?
I can't even run faster than my cat. Bears , rabbits , dogs , and pretty much everything runs faster than us except turtles.
Most of the traits that scientists say we have (including intelligence) are proven to not help us the least bit.

not to help us the least bit? What the hell are you talking about? Evolutionarily speaking, humans are the most fit species on the planet, which is almost entirely because of our intelligence.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Where were all of these things when Fred Flintstone invented fire?
If you take a good look at the technology of the Bushmen tribe in Africa , even their weapons can't fight off a lion.

...and yet somehow they survived, obviously.

maybe it was the ability and intelligence to use fire?

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

How would you know.
I can guarantee you that you are not above 110 years old.
If you haven't seen evolution take millions of years , then it would be better to say it most likely didn't happen , because there is no proof.

how about the fossil record?

If I were to be hit with enough UV radiation , I will get a sunburn , and possibly get cancer.
If there is water around me and a roof above my head , the light won't hit me , but the radiation will still.

no, not ultraviolet. It's pretty weak as far as ionizing radiation goes. It wouldn't get past that roof above your head, which is why you don't get sunburn indoors.

Ice caps , clouds , air , ground , ocean , etc.
You don't realize it yet , but there is enough water to flood the earth , if only the earth was more leveled out.

if only.

too bad that's not possible in forty days or however the hell long the flood took.

They did a Noah's ark feasibility study , which pretty much proved it could happen.

oh gee, once again I don't see any sources.

If one of them isn't backed up by solid 100% fact , then it is not fact.

there's no such thing as absolute fact in science.

Does it matter?
Bringing religion into a debate about science is rediculous.
The fact is , there is most likely a creator , whomever he/she may be.

the fact is, there is no proof of a creator!

But I do have evidence , more so than people who claim to be scientists.

and yet I haven't seen you post any of it yet. How odd!

"Crocodiles have many similarities with birds , therefore birds evolved from crocodiles"

See how strangely I put it?
They could have relative similarities , but that doesn't make them related.

obviously not, but if crocodiles were in the Accipitridae family we would have no choice but to say that they are birds of prey and consequently evolved from other birds of prey.

In fact , a living sea animal was dated to be thousands of years old , according to c14 dating .

that's because you don't use carbon-14 dating on living animals! You get incorrect results if you do.

Originally Posted by talkorigins

Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

A researched it.
Actually my number is incorrect , because I was understating the possibility.
The possibility is actually less than one out of a trillion to the power of a trillion.

more numbers without sources! Why should I believe a word your saying?

The measurements aren't compatible with scientific fact , because there is no accuracy for measuring time.

what are you talking about?

I'm not sure you know how time works either.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Something probably affected the decay rate.
If I could measure time by using a non-standard measurement (Which is what they use) , then my non-standard measurement may not be correct .
By default , any method of measuring time is not 100% accurate.
We can measure 3rd dimensional objects with other 3rd dimensional objects.
But the way we measure the 4th dimension , is by using a 3rd dimensional object in synchronization with a 4th dimensional changeable concept.
It's actually pretty funny , because the observer (thats us or humans in general) are 3 dimensional objects going through a 4th dimensional "One way" line , yet we can't measure the 4th dimension , because we have nothing to compare it to.
You probably don't get the humor , but it is funny if you know what I'm talking about.

Of course we can use "3-dimensional objects to measure the fourth dimension" - we do it all the time!

Do you know what an atomic clock is? They are the best time-keeping devices that we have. One second is defined to be the duration of 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of emission, corresponding to an electron making the transition between two energy levels in a caesium-133 atom. That is how precise the atomic clock is.

In fact, if you have a digital watch, inside it is a tiny quartz crystal. The piezoelectrical effect is employed to set up a series of electromagnetic pulses, which are used to keep time.

Now, of course, the half-life decay rate isn't as precise as an atomic clock (note the difference between precision and accuracy) - but statistically speaking, it's still sufficiently precise to give an approximate age. The error is mostly accounted for in the error bars, which must always be included in any given measurement. For instance, the measurement 4.53 +/- 0.08 Gya means:

"This sample gives us an age of the meteorite of 4.53 billion years, give or take 0.08 billion years."

Furthermore, ages have been calculated for different meteorite samples, using different elements for the radioactive dating method - and they all agree!

For instance, Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years. When sampling a meteorite, it is usually found that a little more than one half-life has elapsed (ie. the ratio between parent and daughter is close to 50-50), indicating an age of a little more than 4.5 billion years. For Rubidium-87, the half-life period rather bigger, at 47 billion years. Comparing Rb-87/Sr-86 ratios to Sr-87/Sr-86 ratios usually indicates an age of around 4.5 billion years. You can check this website if you want to see the exact calculations.

The fact that measurements of radioactive elements with different half-lives yield a consistent age for the Solar System is very strong evidence that the radioactive decay method works.

But what you are suggesting is that a mysterious something has affected the decay rate of every one of these elements, rendering them unusable. Not only that, but this force has changed each half-life by precisely the right amounts - so they all conveniently ended up with an age of 4.5 billion years!

The fact is , we have fossils , which would most likely not exist if it had been for millions of years.

The chance of an animal fossilising is very small indeed, so the fraction of animals that end up fossilised is tiny. However, billions of animals have died and been buried in the course of existence. We may have only a very small probability of fossilisation, but multiply that by a very big number, and the number of fossils we end up with isn't so negligible after all.

So... we lost natural brute strength?
Where did it go?
"UHG , me no need big muscles no more!"
Even if they didn't need the strength , there is still no way to say that we lost that strength to lift cars , because it seems rediculous to me.

We didn't lose the strength to lift cars, because in all likelihood, we never had it in the first place! Our closest living relatives today are the chimpanzees, not the gorillas. Now, chimpanzees are significantly stronger than we are, as an adaptation to a largely arboreal lifestyle (they need that strength in their arms). We, by contrast, do not need that hulking strength, having evolved to live as bipedal animals on the plains. However, our structure makes our arms more useful for carrying objects and handling tools.

Besides, not even a chimpanzee could have any chance against a lion - a chimpanzee may be about twice as strong as an average human, but a lion is over ten times stronger, with teeth and claws to match!