Why do atheists assume evolution is fact?

[ayin jade]

Dendrochronology is a dating method developed by the University of Arizona, based on bristlecone pines. The chronologies that date back further than 10,000 yrs ago (from Europe) were withdrawn after publication when it was discovered that they did not match other well established chronologies. This occured because some tree species can have as many as 5 rings per year. I used to take dendro samples in my archaeology days. I also live in an area with bristlecone pines. Cool trees.

[Rick-Parker]

What do you think the creation timeline of Genesis is? How old is the earth? 6 actual days?

The earth is between 6-10 thousand years. Closer to 6 thousand.

6 actual days?

The Bible states that God created the earth in six days, and rested on the 7th day. You know that God is outside of time and have heard many times that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is a day to God. 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a THOUSAND YEARS, and a THOUSAND YEARS as one day. (BEV) I really don't wish to say any more on this subject than what I have already said.

if the earth is only 6-10,000 years old how do you explain that using tree rings..we can show the earth to be well over 10,000 years old?

I don't have to explain it. I believe the Bible. I trust God over man any day. Still....do the math. If you want someone to explain how to do that, just go to Bible Age of Earth I'm really done with this. See you on other topics.

Rick

[artsylady]

Also, because I trust science when it comes to engineering, chemistry, medicine and biology.

I trust science when it comes to certain things too. Medicine? I was watching a PBS special about labotomy's the other night - Yikes. So many obviously blatant medical errors over the years like this.

Evolution has it's very long list of blatant errors as well. They are quickly dismissed as the new evidence is unquestionably accepted.

People seem to have this idea that science is ultimate truth - no questions asked. When it comes to evolution, it's really nothing more than an educated guess.

[Guest Charles-Darwin]

an educated guess is better than a total shot in the dark..aka religion

[Guest Charles-Darwin]

Dendrochronology is a dating method developed by the University of Arizona, based on bristlecone pines. The chronologies that date back further than 10,000 yrs ago (from Europe) were withdrawn after publication when it was discovered that they did not match other well established chronologies. This occured because some tree species can have as many as 5 rings per year. I used to take dendro samples in my archaeology days. I also live in an area with bristlecone pines. Cool trees.

What do you think the creation timeline of Genesis is? How old is the earth? 6 actual days?

The earth is between 6-10 thousand years. Closer to 6 thousand.

6 actual days?

The Bible states that God created the earth in six days, and rested on the 7th day. You know that God is outside of time and have heard many times that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is a day to God. 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a THOUSAND YEARS, and a THOUSAND YEARS as one day. (BEV) I really don't wish to say any more on this subject than what I have already said.

if the earth is only 6-10,000 years old how do you explain that using tree rings..we can show the earth to be well over 10,000 years old?

I don't have to explain it. I believe the Bible. I trust God over man any day. Still....do the math. If you want someone to explain how to do that, just go to Bible Age of Earth I'm really done with this. See you on other topics.

Rick

mhm..too bad theres thousands of reports showing tree rings over 10,000 years old

[artsylady]

mhm..too bad theres thousands of reports showing tree rings over 10,000 years old

I'd like to examine this. Can you post more?

[artsylady]

an educated guess is better than a total shot in the dark..aka religion

It's not a shot in the dark.

The very one who created the universe inspired men of ages ago to write things down. We can test these things to see if they are true or not. That's what Creation Scientists do. No educated guesses necessary - they carry the same kind of education as other scientists, but don't have to make up stories about how whales turned into cows or slime to humans etc.

[wheels5894]

Well guys, no one has to explain anything they don't want to and that covers this topic on evolution. The problem that is bugging this thread is, though, that no one much has studies evolution and, I think, the term theory is being misused. let me explain.

In science, everything starts with observation, (well not theoretical physics buts that's a bit odd.) An individual notices something that isn't explained wants to understand it more. There comes over time to be a collection of facts to be explained and that is how Darwin was when he came back to the UK from his voyage in the beagle. the next stage is to come up with a hypothesis to explain the facts. Then the hypothesis is published and opened up to other people to look at. Others can try and find evidence that acts against the hypothesis while other facts come in that are in favour.

Finally, when enough facts have been assembled to support the hypothesis, science calls it a Theory. [This is not theory as you or I might have to explain some odd thing, this is a formal declaration of the hypothesis that explains the facts]

Of course, since Darwin, facts have been falling in as research was done and the great part about a theory is that it can predict and those predictions can be checked. Anyone who wants to know about evolution can find some good text book in libraries to find out more. The main papers on the subject are published in the magazine 'Nature'. All papers in nature are peer reviewed by other scientists to make sure the paper is OK. nature has published over 13,000 papers, maily facts, which support the Theory of Evolution. It is a great Theory that has helped out all sort of areas of study including medicine. have you ever though about the current study of genes and DNA? Why do you think we have som many odd genes that don't do anything in our own DNA? inheritance from common ancestors explains it but I am unaware of any other explanation.

So, that's a very small nutshell of Evolution Theory. Now none of this goes against religion. It could do but it doesn't have to. It is perfectly reasonable that God kick started the process and then watched it develop. It would explain the various extinct animals, like dinosaurs better than God creating them and then destroying them again. the only problem is the time. Evolution took a huge amount of time - time which was available as can be shown by the age of rocks. Other scientific theories can date rocks but we can't go into that now. A few billion years is what is needed.

Summing up, if you care to take the Bible and conclude the age of the earth is 6000 years you are going to gave to just believe it without any evidence because there is no evidence. For example, if you do believe the young age fro the earth, can you make predictions from that as to how the earth ought to look? Does you theory explain whynthe rocks appear to be so much older? If not, you are lacking any evidence to base a hypothesis on never mind a theory.

Atheism is nothing to o with evolution at all. Of course, science works with the natural world. It cannot take into account anything else. Yet the science that is done provides very good explanations of the world around us. gosd is not excluded per se although, of course, He does not appear in the theories as it is hard to demonstrate His presence as He is in another dimension. I think the answer is, that if you cannot accept the 150 years work on the Theory of Evolution and prefer a 6,000 year old earth then maybe the medical offshoots and modern medical science in particular are not for you and you should resort to prayer only to heal yourself and your families. Nonetheless, the Theory does not exclude God who invented and started the system. It s not atheistic to go with Evolution - it is just a further revelation of the work of God.

[Guest Charles-Darwin]

mhm..too bad theres thousands of reports showing tree rings over 10,000 years old

I'd like to examine this. Can you post more?

an educated guess is better than a total shot in the dark..aka religion

It's not a shot in the dark.

The very one who created the universe inspired men of ages ago to write things down. We can test these things to see if they are true or not. That's what Creation Scientists do. No educated guesses necessary - they carry the same kind of education as other scientists, but don't have to make up stories about how whales turned into cows or slime to humans etc.

other than your own faith do you have ANY proof that the men who wrote the bible were indeed inspired by your god? perhaps they were just crazy and had voices in their head that told them crazy stories...or maybe they were just rewriting the myths of another culture(which is what really happened..the bible is a plagerism of sumarian myths)

creation scientists are an oxymoron..creation scientists are not true scientists they have a hypothesis and then design experiments to get the data they want to see..thats why the EAL scientific community(many of whom are christians) ignore the creation scientists..because their data and their experiments are useless scientifically

they take advantage of the general population's lack of knowledge in science and desire to beleive to make money or become famous

just because they carry the same education(which Btw is false for all but a small handful) that doesnt mean they use good science. I have yet to see a single peice of creation "science" that follows the scientific method and doesnt go into the experiment with the desire to find the truth..regardlss of whether it goes against their beleifs or not..show me one creation scientists who has published a paper that goes against the traditional deas he held..real scientists do it all the time theyre just as excited to be proven wrong as to be proven right

[artsylady]

Hi Wheels and welcome.

In science, everything starts with observation, (well not theoretical physics buts that's a bit odd.) An individual notices something that isn't explained wants to understand it more. There comes over time to be a collection of facts to be explained and that is how Darwin was when he came back to the UK from his voyage in the beagle. the next stage is to come up with a hypothesis to explain the facts. Then the hypothesis is published and opened up to other people to look at. Others can try and find evidence that acts against the hypothesis while other facts come in that are in favour.

Creationists observe the same evidence that evolutionists do.

Finally, when enough facts have been assembled to support the hypothesis, science calls it a Theory. [This is not theory as you or I might have to explain some odd thing, this is a formal declaration of the hypothesis that explains the facts]

Evolution doesn't really follow the scientific method, anymore than creationism or id do, because the predictions don't happen like they should.

Of course, since Darwin, facts have been falling in as research was done and the great part about a theory is that it can predict and those predictions can be checked. Anyone who wants to know about evolution can find some good text book in libraries to find out more. The main papers on the subject are published in the magazine 'Nature'. All papers in nature are peer reviewed by other scientists to make sure the paper is OK. nature has published over 13,000 papers, maily facts, which support the Theory of Evolution. It is a great Theory that has helped out all sort of areas of study including medicine. have you ever though about the current study of genes and DNA? Why do you think we have som many odd genes that don't do anything in our own DNA? inheritance from common ancestors explains it but I am unaware of any other explanation.

There are literally thousands of evidences that are anamolies - they don't fit. They cannot be explained through evolutionary terms.

So, that's a very small nutshell of Evolution Theory. Now none of this goes against religion. It could do but it doesn't have to. It is perfectly reasonable that God kick started the process and then watched it develop. It would explain the various extinct animals, like dinosaurs better than God creating them and then destroying them again. the only problem is the time. Evolution took a huge amount of time - time which was available as can be shown by the age of rocks. Other scientific theories can date rocks but we can't go into that now. A few billion years is what is needed.

When we start talking in the millions and billions of years, we have to assume then that the dating methods used by modern sciences are completely trustworthy. In order to believe they are completely trustworthy, we need to believe that the conditions of today were the same kinds of conditions throughout history .... and we don't know that to be fact.

I'll give you one quick example of why K-AR is completely unreliable, if the earth is in fact young. It's very well known that K-AR will date anything 'young' in the millions of years. So when you need something tested in a lab, you have to tell the technicians where you found it and what age you believe it to be in order for them to be able to date it 'correctly'. Does this sound really scientific to you?

Summing up, if you care to take the Bible and conclude the age of the earth is 6000 years you are going to gave to just believe it without any evidence because there is no evidence.

The evidence used by evolutionists is the same evidence used by creationists. There are different origins theories, but there is very common fallacy that creationists 'ignore' evidence, and that's not the case at all.

For example, if you do believe the young age fro the earth, can you make predictions from that as to how the earth ought to look? Does you theory explain whynthe rocks appear to be so much older? If not, you are lacking any evidence to base a hypothesis on never mind a theory.

answersingenesis.org has a lot of great information. If you don't want to go into their regular articles, there are technical articles. This stuff is studied by a growing list of 'real' scientists.

Atheism is nothing to o with evolution at all. Of course, science works with the natural world. It cannot take into account anything else. Yet the science that is done provides very good explanations of the world around us. gosd is not excluded per se although, of course, He does not appear in the theories as it is hard to demonstrate His presence as He is in another dimension. I think the answer is, that if you cannot accept the 150 years work on the Theory of Evolution and prefer a 6,000 year old earth then maybe the medical offshoots and modern medical science in particular are not for you and you should resort to prayer only to heal yourself and your families. Nonetheless, the Theory does not exclude God who invented and started the system. It s not atheistic to go with Evolution - it is just a further revelation of the work of God.

I disagree that evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Know any atheists that believe in creation?

Evolution is a philosophy introduced when man was ripe and ready to do away with God in a so called 'intellectual' way. Freud, Nietzche, Darwin, Marx etc.

Evolution was accepted without any real proof - case in point, most of the 'proof' and predictions made have long since been thrown out. Same with the scopes trial. All of the evidence presented then, has since been tossed out.

The only thing that is truly evolving is the theory itself. Check the news headlines and you'll see it happen on a weekly basis.