Do you believe in evolution?

JonathanBernatowicz · January 25, 2014

Ask a question about evolution. I will link you to the post with an answer which will invariably be in the last 24 pages.

I've stopped posting here because I feel that this has all been covered already.

Okay. While the dynamo theory also can follow up with it, do you agree that the magnetic field has steadily decreased by 7% since the last careful research 170 years ago, and the energy of the magnetic field has decreased by 14%? While this is indirect observation (just like most of this thread) since 1000 A.D. the magnetic field intensity has been estimated to be decreased by 40%. Thoughts? Thank-you for replying by the way, instead of continuing with that silly argument :)

AbsoluteZero · January 25, 2014

thats the reason i perfectly hope theres a supernatural being behind all creation,if u fail to understand this then ur life is really worthless no matter any meaning u give to it whether good or bad.Personally ive already accepted the fact that im gonna die someday and i dont even fear it anymore my real purpose now is to know if im doing the right thing before dieing.

Then one day someone close to you will pass away and you take some comfort in knowing they've gone to a good place and one day, you'll be reunited after all, right? Until the day comes when you break your programming and realise the inevitable which is there is no afterlife. You'll feel robbed and cheated that you didn't mourn that person properly.

Yes, I'm speaking from experience.

Meliora · January 25, 2014

What does evolution have to say about when you die?

I mean I don't think nothingness exists.

yvano · January 25, 2014

Then one day someone close to you will pass away and you take some comfort in knowing they've gone to a good place and one day, you'll be reunited after all, right? Until the day comes when you break your programming and realise the inevitable which is there is no afterlife. You'll feel robbed and cheated that you didn't mourn that person properly.

Yes, I'm speaking from experience.

afterall if wat ur saying is true wats the point in mourning someone that i will soon join as though both of us never existed :unsure: (people tend to forget that when they mourn for a lost one),therefore afterdieing there will be no regrets on who was finally right about creation or even about mourning for a lost one,remember dead people dont think nor feel remorse their emotions,thoughts and wants all dies with them.sad conclusion really...if uve lost someone dear im sorry about that.....

AbsoluteZero · January 25, 2014

afterall if wat ur saying is true wats the point in mourning someone that i will soon join as though both of us never existed :unsure: (people tend to forget that when they mourn for a lost one),therefore afterdieing there will be no regrets on who was finally right about creation or even about mourning for a lost one,remember dead people dont think nor feel remorse their emotions,thoughts and wants all dies with them.sad conclusion really...if uve lost someone dear im sorry about that.....

I wasn't always an atheist.

JonathanBernatowicz · January 25, 2014

If you pose it as eternal, then we can simply say the universe is eternal and has no cause.

um....wut? Yes I pose my God as no beginning and no end. How is that relevant to the universe? He made the universe, yes. But how does that mean the universe is eternal and has no cause? After all, the universe needs a beginning. A god, a true God, doesn't need a beginning. He's God. He can do anything. Why would that need a beginning? A universe needs a beginning because it is NOT a god. It's a universe, with all things inside it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

That's a very big page, but I read what I did so forgive me if I skipped a very important part. However it seems that this is saying that in order for this collection to happen, you'd need no oxygen. "Oxygenless".

Evolution's goal is not to form humans, it's to adapt and survive. We are not the finished product of evolution, we are still evolving and so are other animals.

This is the sentence I couldn't agree more with. So, if all we are is to adapt and survive, there seems to be no purpose. You seem to act as if evolution has a mind. It doesn't. So, if we all committed suicide, it wouldn't matter at all. Because all we are are just some organic material living in this world for nothing. There's no point. No purpose. While it has nothing (or not much) to do with this argument, it's significant when thinking about life in general.

- Yes, all animals have survival instincts, and part of survival is evolution

- 1k years in nothing the grand scheme of things, wait a couple million years

-Yes survival is part of evolution. We, or even animals, can choose to survive best we can. Clearly, and I agree to that. However, you can't just expect organisms to change their structure in a quick moment when they can't survive no longer.

-Okay then. We have only records of what stuff has looked like in the past say 1k years. Even 500 years ago , we're not sure what life was like, but we have an idea. But you're saying that we're going to need a couple million years to see any difference? How then can we find out how evolution is true in this aspect, if we need millions of years that are not recorded. Also, don't you think that with a million years (as I've heard evolutionists state that humans have been around for 2.5 million years according to a pro biologist chart) we'd have technology a lot longer ago, and we'd have more evidence and already have a mind to record everything that has happened? Think about it please. If humans were alive in 2.5 m B.C., then wouldn't we at least have the common sense to record everything 1 M years ago?

Both theories I believe have rationality to it, and both can be a bit irrational. However, the question is, which is more rational? And that can only be done with scientific experiment.

AbsoluteZero · January 25, 2014

Here is an interesting video

This was a top comment:

Species gradually change over time, and only when speciation occurs (which takes a lot longer than one human life) does the animal become another distinct species. But evolution is not all about speciation, it is about the change over time that has lead to that speciation. That's what the word means - change over time.

By the way, we have observed speciation (see finches), but you probably won't accept that, because they're still birds and not flying macaques.

And that's a key point that people just can't understand so they dismiss the whole subject.
Because they can't see a lizard turn into a monkey in their lifetime, evolution can't be true.

Doubters really need to understand what evolution actually is before coming out with the, Why are there still Apes, type of questions.

Now I know why some people dance around the room shaking when a spider crawls on them! :blink:

Edited January 25, 2014 by AbsoluteZero

JonathanBernatowicz · January 25, 2014

Because they can't see a lizard turn into a monkey in their lifetime, evolution can't be true.

It's not just their lifetime, but anybody-who-has-ever-recorded-this-stuff's lifetime, which has been going on for more or less 200 years.

Doubters really need to understand what evolution actually is before coming out with the, Why are there still Apes, type of questions.

Well, according to that comment evolution is a change in progress. Pretty simple. However, if it's a change in progress wouldn't all life forms of that change be changed into that change? So theWhy are there still apes type of questions don't seem so invalid to me, because if one ape (or many) evolved into humans, wouldn't all apes turn into humans and not be stuck at what they are now?

Reeco9 · January 25, 2014

thats the reason i perfectly hope theres a supernatural being behind all creation,if u fail to understand this then ur life is really worthless no matter any meaning u give to it whether good or bad.Personally ive already accepted the fact that im gonna die someday and i dont even fear it anymore my real purpose now is to know if im doing the right thing before dieing.

Although it's nice and pleasant to think there's a supernatural being behind all creation, who will grant you some form of afterlife, the chances of this are minuscule/non-existent.

yvano · January 25, 2014

Although it's nice and pleasant to think there's a supernatural being behind all creation, who will grant you some form of afterlife, the chances of this are minuscule/non-existent.

whether ur right or wrong makes no sense if we follow ur way of thinking,read my previous comments,u will see why i say this....

GoldRock2 · January 25, 2014

Okay. While the dynamo theory also can follow up with it, do you agree that the magnetic field has steadily decreased by 7% since the last careful research 170 years ago, and the energy of the magnetic field has decreased by 14%? While this is indirect observation (just like most of this thread) since 1000 A.D. the magnetic field intensity has been estimated to be decreased by 40%. Thoughts?

Well, this doesn't seem directly evolution-related. If such a scientific observation is correct (and I have no idea if it is, I'd have to do some research), what would that mean for this particular topic?

What does evolution have to say about when you die?

I mean I don't think nothingness exists.

Evolution has nothing to say about that, because that subject does not fall under the subject of evolution. It's like asking what creationism has to say about black holes.

Fen-Harel · January 25, 2014

What does evolution have to say about when you die?

I mean I don't think nothingness exists.

Nothing.

um....wut? Yes I pose my God as no beginning and no end. How is that relevant to the universe? He made the universe, yes. But how does that mean the universe is eternal and has no cause? After all, the universe needs a beginning. A god, a true God, doesn't need a beginning. He's God. He can do anything. Why would that need a beginning? A universe needs a beginning because it is NOT a god. It's a universe, with all things inside it.

That's a very big page, but I read what I did so forgive me if I skipped a very important part. However it seems that this is saying that in order for this collection to happen, you'd need no oxygen. "Oxygenless".

If you impose a creator, you start an infinite regress, you can't say the creator is just eternal since by that we can say the universe is eternal and needs no cause. And you're the one who assumes a god while I am not. You seem to know a lot about this god of yours, why am I denied this knowledge?

The point of the link are the further reading segments at the bottom of the page, science journals and books etc.

This is the sentence I couldn't agree more with. So, if all we are is to adapt and survive, there seems to be no purpose. You seem to act as if evolution has a mind. It doesn't. So, if we all committed suicide, it wouldn't matter at all. Because all we are are just some organic material living in this world for nothing. There's no point. No purpose. While it has nothing (or not much) to do with this argument, it's significant when thinking about life in general.

Exactly.

It's not just their lifetime, but anybody-who-has-ever-recorded-this-stuff's lifetime, which has been going on for more or less 200 years.

Well, according to that comment evolution is a change in progress. Pretty simple. However, if it's a change in progress wouldn't all life forms of that change be changed into that change? So theWhy are there still apes type of questions don't seem so invalid to me, because if one ape (or many) evolved into humans, wouldn't all apes turn into humans and not be stuck at what they are now?

You really don't get it do you? The modern apes are not who we are evolved from, we and the modern ape have an ancient ancestor. We branched off into two directions. And humans aren't what apes need to evolve to.

About what you asked SonOfDeath

-Yes survival is part of evolution. We, or even animals, can choose to survive best we can. Clearly, and I agree to that. However, you can't just expect organisms to change their structure in a quick moment when they can't survive no longer.

-Okay then. We have only records of what stuff has looked like in the past say 1k years. Even 500 years ago , we're not sure what life was like, but we have an idea. But you're saying that we're going to need a couple million years to see any difference? How then can we find out how evolution is true in this aspect, if we need millions of years that are not recorded. Also, don't you think that with a million years (as I've heard evolutionists state that humans have been around for 2.5 million years according to a pro biologist chart) we'd have technology a lot longer ago, and we'd have more evidence and already have a mind to record everything that has happened? Think about it please. If humans were alive in 2.5 m B.C., then wouldn't we at least have the common sense to record everything 1 M years ago?

Both theories I believe have rationality to it, and both can be a bit irrational. However, the question is, which is more rational? And that can only be done with scientific experiment.

Fossil evidence.

r_Inferno_Blast0 · January 26, 2014

Player Inferno_Blast has been banned for a week. Reason: Extreme Flood in Forum

Edited January 26, 2014 by Irontank1v

JonathanBernatowicz · January 26, 2014

Well, this doesn't seem directly evolution-related. If such a scientific observation is correct (and I have no idea if it is, I'd have to do some research), what would that mean for this particular topic?

Well let me explain. The earth's magnetic field is one of the most controversial subjects there is. You see, the magnetic field is what makes us know what is North and South on a compass. It's earth's biggest magnet, as it's earth itself. There has been shown and proven to be a magnetic field. But the controversy is--where is it and how does it work? Well, there are two theories. One evolutionist, one creationist. It would be impossible for evolutionists to believe in the other and vice-versa. Let me explain the two theories and how they both work, then you may be able to draw conclusions, etc.

As I said, there are basically two theories that try to explain where this electrical current in the earth's core originates. "The first theory, called the Dynamo theory, is believed by the majority of scientists today. This theory says that the motion of fluid in the outer core of the earth is caused by temperature differences in the outer core as well as the rotation of the earth. This motion causes the motion of electrical charges in the core, which creates electrical current.

The second theory, which is believed by a minority of scientists, is called the rapid-decay theory. This theory states the electrical current of the earth is a consequence of how it was created. If one makes a few assumptions about how earth was created, it is possible to actually calculate how much electrical current would be generated as a result. That electrical current would then begin to slow down over time, because electrical flow is resisted by all matter through which it flows. This would cause the current to slow down, eventually stopping.

So GoldRock, do you see the difference between the two theories? The Dynamo theory says that temperature differences in the outer core and the rotation of the earth work together to keep the electrical current in the core going. The rapid-decay theory says that earth's inner core is actually slowing down the flow of electricity that was started as a consequence of how the earth was created. Well, since the majority of scientists believe the dynamo theory, it must be the correct one, right? Not necessarily. Science is not done by majority rule (which is what I'm trying to say); rather done by experiment as you would probably agree. We cannot directly observe the core of the earth to see whether it is helping the electrical current or slowing it down, but we can observe it indirectly.

So goldy, how do we do that? How do we observe the inner core indirectly? You see, all scientists as a group determined its size and composition by examining the way it responded to seismic waves. The way to observe it's magnetic field, is to make careful measurements of the intensity it produces. Now you probably know how to determine the validity of a scientific theory when we are making indirect observations I'm guessing? Well if you sort of forget, basically scientists use the theory to make predictions, and then they compare those predictions to data they collect. In the end, the theory most consistent with the data is the one we should believe.

The first thing we can observe about the magnetic field is that its strength of intensity is decaying. Over the past recorded 170 years, scientists have been making careful measurements of the strength of earth's magnetic field, and these measurements tell us that over time, the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. Which theory best explains this fact? Well, they both do, but the rapid-decay theory does a slightly better job. The rapid-decay theory predicts a rather steady decay in the earth's magnetic field, and that's what has been observed over the last 170 years. The Dynamo theory predicts a changing magnetic field, because temperature differences in the earth's outer core change, which will cause a change in the flow of fluid. It could be that during the past 170 years, the changing fluid flow has been such that the magnetic field of the earth is decreasing. However, the Dynamo theory predicts that eventually, the fluid flow will change such that the magnetic field will increase again. Thus, both theories predict changes in the earth's magnetic field, but the changes they predict are....different. The rapid-decay theory predicts a general decrease in the earth's magnetic field, while the Dynamo theory predicts a fluctuating magnetic field, with the field sometimes getting weaker and sometimes getting stronger. In the end, then, both theories are consistent with the data, but the Rapid-Decay theory explains the data more directly, as it directly predicts a decaying magnetic field. If the Dynamo theory is correct (as the majority of scientists say it is) then we just happen to be living during one of the times when the earth's magnetic field is decreasing.

The next thing we can observe about the magnetic field is that throughout the history of the earth, it has reversed a few times. What this means is that during certain times in the earth's past, there is evidence to indicate that the field actually pointed in the opposite direction. (Let me clarify, it's not to say the earth's magnetic field strength is growing, but has pointed the other direction) How do scientists know this? Well, there are certain materials in the crust that are naturally magnetic. These materials tend to point in the direction of the magnetic field, like a current compass that we use almost everyday. In certain rock layers of the crust, however, the natural magnets imbedded in the rock are pointed in the opposite direction. This would indicate that when those rock layers formed, the earth's magnetic field was actually pointed in the opposite direction, as compared to the direction in which it is pointed today.

Which theory best explains this fact? Well, they both do. Once again, however, one theory has the edge. This time, it is the Dynamo theory. The Dynamo theory predicts such reversals, because it predicts that the fluid motion in the inner core, will, every now and again, reverse. This will cause the magnetic field to reverse. The Rapid-Decay theory allows for such magnetic field reversals, too, but only in the event of cataclysmic volcanic and geological activity. If such activity happened in the past, the Rapid-Decay theory allows for several magnetic reversals as well. However since the Dynamo theory predicts such behavior, and the Rapid Decay theory only allows for such behavior if certain things happened in the past, the Dynamo theory is a better explanation of the fact that the earth's magnetic field has reversed in the past.

Now GoldRock, even though the Dynamo theory is better at directly explaining the fact that earth's magnetic field has reversed in the past, a detail of these reversals is a serious problem for the Dynamo theory. The Dynamo theory predicts that changes in the magnetic field will occur slowly, because it takes time for the temperature differences in the core to cause the fluid flow to change. As a result, the Dynamo theory predicts that reversals in the earth's magnetic field should happen slowly. Many Dynamo theory calculations, for example, indicate that 2,000 years is the minimum time frame for a magnetic field reversal. However, since 1989, scientists have found evidence that at least some reversals have happened over a period of 15 days or less. While this time scale is a problem for the Dynamo theory, it fits well in the Rapid-Decay theory, since that theory assumes such reversals are the result of cataclysmic volcanic and geographic activity, which would cause rapid changes.

The final thing we can observe is the magnetic fields of other planets. After all, any theory that explains the earth's magnetic field should be able to explain the magnetic fields of the other planets that have them, right? It should also be able to explain why certain planets do not have magnetic fields. Which theory best fits the data in this case? Only the Rapid-Decay theory. The Rapid-Decay theory has correctly calculated the magnetic field of every planet that has one. By contrast, the Dynamo theory cannot even correctly predict which planets have a magnetic field and which planets do not.

The Dynamo theory, for example, predicts a magnetic field on the planet Mars, while the Rapid-Decay theory says there was a magnetic field there in the past, but there should not be one now. The data indicate that Mars currently has no planetary magnetic field. Conversely, the Dynamo theory predicts no magnetic field on Mercury, while the Rapid-Decay theory predicts that Mercury should have a magnetic field. It turns out that Mercury does have a magnetic field. Even more convincing, years before the Voyager spacecraft measured the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, scientists used both the Rapid-Decay theory and the Dynamo theory to make predictions of the strength of both planets' magnetic fields. The Rapid-Decay theory correctly predicted the results of Voyager's measurements, while the Dynamo theory was off by a factor of 100,000!

In the realm of science you may know, a theory that attempts to explain a phenomenon we cannot observe directly must be consistent with any measurements scientists make. In the case of a planet's magnetic field, only the Rapid-Decay theory is consistent with all measurement data. So, you may be scratching you head on this question. Why, then, do the majority of scientists believe in the Dynamo theory. Well Goldy, it turns out that the Rapid-Decay theory has two consequences that the majority of scientists don't want to believe. First, in order to be consistent with the idea of magnetic field reversals, the Rapid-Decay theory must rely on a global, cataclysmic event. Most scientists don't believe that such an event ever occurred. Scientists that believe in the worldwide flood during Noah's time, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid-Decay theorists say that an event such as the Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory.

The other consequence makes even more scientists uneasy. The timescale of the Rapid-Decay theory is on the order of a few thousand years. In fact, according to the way the Rapid-Decay theory is constructed, the earth must have been formed less than 10,000 years ago. This makes many geologists uneasy, because they want to believe the earth is much older than that! Thus, since the Rapid-Decay theory assumes that a worldwide, cataclysmic event such as Noah's flood occurred sometime in earth's past, and since the Rapid-Decay theory concludes that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old, most scientists reject it. They reject it despite the fact that it is the only theory consistent with all of the data collected.

Christians (such as myself) who believe that the entire book of Genesis should be taken as literal history, of course, have no problem with assuming that Noah's flood really happened and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Thus, it is easy for them to accept the consequences of the Rapid-Decay theory. As a result, most of the scientists who believe the Rapid-Decay theory are Christians who have a very strict, literal view of Genesis."

You're welcome for explaining all that.

r_comeandgetit0 · January 26, 2014

Jonathan, that was a very educated, intelligent post, whether or not I agree with you.

SonofDeath · January 26, 2014

The other consequence makes even more scientists uneasy. The timescale of the Rapid-Decay theory is on the order of a few thousand years. In fact, according to the way the Rapid-Decay theory is constructed, the earth must have been formed less than 10,000 years ago. This makes many geologists uneasy, because they want to believe the earth is much older than that! Thus, since the Rapid-Decay theory assumes that a worldwide, cataclysmic event such as Noah's flood occurred sometime in earth's past, and since the Rapid-Decay theory concludes that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old, most scientists reject it. They reject it despite the fact that it is the only theory consistent with all of the data collected.

Christians (such as myself) who believe that the entire book of Genesis should be taken as literal history, of course, have no problem with assuming that Noah's flood really happened and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Thus, it is easy for them to accept the consequences of the Rapid-Decay theory. As a result, most of the scientists who believe the Rapid-Decay theory are Christians who have a very strict, literal view of Genesis."

You're welcome for explaining all that.

Flaws in it

1. If the earth is less than 10, 000 years old then when did the dinosaurs come in? Did a bunch of 60 million year old fossils just drop from the sky?

2. Do you think that scientists don't know this, and yet they choose to support the other theory? They have their reasons

3. Then when did the moon come in if the earth is only 10, 000 years old.

4. The church is known to be wrong before, look at them saying that we are at the center of the universe a couple centuries ago. Whatever they say is not reliable and nor ever will be

5. What makes the bible right and every other holy book (gita, kiran) wrong?

There is a reason that the majority of scientists do not believe in this theory, because it is IMPOSSIBLE for the earth to be only 10, 000 years old. I trust carbon dating much more than a theory that the majority of scientists DO NOT believe in

“Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.”

-Arthur Schopenhauer

Edited January 26, 2014 by SonofDeath

JonathanBernatowicz · January 26, 2014

Flaws in it

1. If the earth is less than 10, 000 years old then when did the dinosaurs come in? Did a bunch of 60 million year old fossils just drop from the sky?

2. Do you think that scientists don't know this, and yet they choose to support the other theory? They have their reasons

3. Then when did the moon come in if the earth is only 10, 000 years old.

4. The church is known to be wrong before, look at them saying that we are at the center of the universe a couple centuries ago. Whatever they say is not reliable and nor ever will be

5. What makes the bible right and every other holy book (gita, kiran) wrong?

There is a reason that the majority of scientists do not believe in this theory, because it is IMPOSSIBLE for the earth to be only 10, 000 years old. I trust carbon dating much more than a theory that the majority of scientists DO NOT believe in

“Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.”

-Arthur Schopenhauer

Calm down, I'm not in the mood right now to argue, but I will say this. I did not claim that the earth was 10,000 years old there (though I do believe that)but rather stated that in order to believe the Rapid-Decay theory you'd have to believe the earth is 10,000 years old.

AbsoluteZero · January 26, 2014

I did not claim that the earth was 10,000 years old there (though I do believe that)

How old is the universe then because we are receiving light from galaxies billions of light years away. What does the Bible say about that?

How did all that oil get underground in less than 10,000 years? Did God put it there so we could use it for our 4x4's?

If the Earth is 10k years old then God is one devious character. Why trick his creation into believing that the Earth is actually 4½ billion years old and the universe over twice that? Why did he go to all the trouble in planting all that proof and all that evidence? Or is it all a big test to weed out the critical thinkers amongst us leaving behind the obedient, unquestioning sheep! :D Those critical thinkers though eh? All going to Hell because they use their brains. Why did God give them brains? Ah, it's so he can send them to Hell in the giant game of life that he constructed for his amusement.

Thank God I'm an atheist! B)

Dawkins on young Earth Creationists

http://youtu.be/PbTpAsCKyBo

Man in white coat lying about science saying Earth 6,000 years old

I only watched the first 1min 25 seconds of that creationist video and the dishonesty of the man made me switch off.

Why be dishonest? I thought lying is going against what Christians are taught!

Edited January 26, 2014 by AbsoluteZero

GoldRock2 · January 26, 2014

Interesting stuff. I agree that the number of believers in an idea does not determine that idea's validity, just as religion isn't necessarily correct just because so many people follow it. However, it would seem you have given a rather outdated comparison of the two theories in your post - here is what Wikipedia (which operates under strict non-bias guidelines) has to say:

Earth's magnetic field: rapid-decay and rapid reversals.

This hypothesis was developed by Thomas G. Barnes, who was Creation Research Society president in the mid-1970s. Taking the assumption that the Earth's magnetic field decayed exponentially, and ignoring evidence of it fluctuating over time, he estimated that "the life of the earth's magnetic field should be reckoned in thousands, not millions or billions, of years." It has drawn harsh criticism from both scientists and some creationists.

It has long been observed that Earth's magnetic field gradually changes over time (e.g., by Henry Gellibrand of Gresham College, in 1634). Much of this change is due to movement of the magnet poles, and changes in the Earth's non-dipole field. The Earth's magnetic field strength was measured by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835 and has been repeatedly measured since then, showing a relative decay of about 5% over the last 150 years.

One proposal is based on the assumption that Earth was created from pure water with all of the molecules' spins aligned creating a substantial magnetic field. However spin relaxation times, which measure the time nuclear magnetisations take to return to the equilibrium, are typically measured in the range of milliseconds or seconds.

Russell Humphreys accepts a core-current based magnetic field and archaeomagnetic measurements of the magnetic field (based on measurements of human artifacts), and concludes that several reversals of the magnetic field occurred during the biblical flood. The concept of rapid magnetic field reversals has been linked to the creationist theory that runaway plate subduction occurred during Noah's flood. Such rapid (month long) variation contradict measurements of the conductivity of the Earth's mantle.

Such ideas are inconsistent with the basic physics of magnetism. While short term variations have been shown to be due to a variety of factors, the long-term (million year) variation in field intensity (and even reversal in polarity) are modeled as due to changes in electric currents in the liquid outer core of the Earth.

All of the assertions made in the above text are sourced, and I can link to those sources if desired.

Which brings me to another point - where are your sources for saying the world was created less than 10,000 years ago? Where is your objectifiable evidence?

Even if the rapid-decay theory better suited observations made than the dynamo theory - which according to most scientific experts, it doesn't (and numbers does play a part here since these are all experts - the majority of creationists will not have tried to understand scientific theories such as evolution from an unbiased perspective, or even read the Bible itself from cover-to-cover) - that doesn't make the rapid-decay theory correct.

For example, some cavemen come across an orange lying on the ground. They come up with two ideas - one being that it grew from the ground itself (due to natural processes), and another being that it fell from the sky (due to some sort of God creating it). Though the second idea is more accurate in description, it's definitely not correct in the causes it provides - yes, the orange will have fallen from the sky, but not quite all the way from heaven!

So just because one theory seems to 'fit' events better (e.g. one of the caveman may have saw the orange landing on the ground), it does not make it correct. Science does not exist to mould a theory around circumstantial evidence and use it to say "Oh look, it must be God!" (which is what the rapid-decay theory is an example of), but it rather exists to find objectifiable evidence for a theory in an unbiased manner, not with any religious or political purposes in mind.

And in fact, rapid-decay is not a better scientific theory than the dynamo theory in the first place in the eyes of many scientists, due to the large amounts of evidence pointing to a historic fluctuation in the Earth's magnetic field.

Don't forget about the dozens of other scientific theories that seem to work and which point to the Earth's age being measurable in billions of years, too. I will be able to present these theories to you if desired.

So, it'd be great if you could answer the two questions I posed earlier in this post. Thanks for your response, and I hope this discussion will continue to be both engaging and constructive!

Edited January 26, 2014 by GoldRock2

Fen-Harel · January 28, 2014

Come on, the topic is getting interesting, I want it to keep going...

yvano · January 30, 2014

Come on, the topic is getting interesting, I want it to keep going...

wat good is it gonna make being right?no victors no defeated cuz it will all end up thesame way whether right or wrong.I may be wrong right now and u may see it but wat good is it gonna make,u disprooving me,knowing that we are soon gonna die lets not waste our time on vanitous discussions.Both atheists and believers are all equal to death,no one will shout in the grave yeah!! i was right!.Yeah evolution is true but the simple thought of it only lasts during ones lifetime,once its done it vanishes as though it never existed.There will be no regrets or glimpse of happiness in the grave.I think we should end this topic though i will never admit creation just came about...

Edited January 30, 2014 by yvano

yvano · January 30, 2014

How old is the universe then because we are receiving light from galaxies billions of light years away. What does the Bible say about that?

How did all that oil get underground in less than 10,000 years? Did God put it there so we could use it for our 4x4's?

If the Earth is 10k years old then God is one devious character. Why trick his creation into believing that the Earth is actually 4½ billion years old and the universe over twice that? Why did he go to all the trouble in planting all that proof and all that evidence? Or is it all a big test to weed out the critical thinkers amongst us leaving behind the obedient, unquestioning sheep! :D Those critical thinkers though eh? All going to Hell because they use their brains. Why did God give them brains? Ah, it's so he can send them to Hell in the giant game of life that he constructed for his amusement.

Thank God I'm an atheist! B)

Dawkins on young Earth Creationists

http://youtu.be/PbTpAsCKyBo

Man in white coat lying about science saying Earth 6,000 years old

I only watched the first 1min 25 seconds of that creationist video and the dishonesty of the man made me switch off.

Why be dishonest? I thought lying is going against what Christians are taught!

someones whos already felt extreme pain and suffering in this life will never approove ur thoughts,u see ur thoughts are shaped by the environment in which u were brought in,wat if u were born in africa,in extreme misery,no means to a good education and so on ur thoughts will be radically different.Good ur an atheist because u will get nothin good from it,afterall agitate urself durin ur entire life it will soon end,conclusion: till then no one can claim anything is a hundred percent true in this life.

Fen-Harel · January 30, 2014

wat good is it gonna make being right?no victors no defeated cuz it will all end up thesame way whether right or wrong.I may be wrong right now and u may see it but wat good is it gonna make,u disprooving me,knowing that we are soon gonna die lets not waste our time on vanitous discussions.Both atheists and believers are all equal to death,no one will shout in the grave yeah!! i was right!.Yeah evolution is true but the simple thought of it only lasts during ones lifetime,once its done it vanishes as though it never existed.There will be no regrets or glimpse of happiness in the grave.I think we should end this topic though i will never admit creation just came about...

Yey. Well, I tend to like to have as many true beliefs as possible, and reduce the number of false ones. Seems like a good enough reason to talk about this stuff. And if you disprove my belief and/or prove yours I'll have no problems adjusting myself to it...

someones whos already felt extreme pain and suffering in this life will never approove ur thoughts,u see ur thoughts are shaped by the environment in which u were brought in,wat if u were born in africa,in extreme misery,no means to a good education and so on ur thoughts will be radically different.Good ur an atheist because u will get nothin good from it,afterall agitate urself durin ur entire life it will soon end,conclusion: till then no one can claim anything is a hundred percent true in this life.

That's correct, we can't prove anything for 100%, so what? Does that mean we shouldn't look for an answer at all? Should we not live and make our lives better each day?

flae88 · January 30, 2014

Should we not live and make our lives better each day?

No.

Fen-Harel · January 30, 2014

Why not? Better life conditions lead to a more stable and happier individual and society which is beneficial for survival.

Challenge	Start Date	End Date
1	15.08	29.08
2	29.08	05.09
3	05.09	12.09
4	12.09	19.09
5	19.09	26.09
6	26.09	3.10
7	3.10	10.10
8	10.10	17.10

Pumpkin Grenade

Bots

Discounts

Special event modes

Special offers

Epic Containers

Special Missions

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK

REWARD

TASK