The specific age of fossils (or materials formed around the fossils) is determined by radiometric dating methods with a reasonable accuracy. If a fossil is in the same layer as another fossil or material with a known age it can be assumed to have close to the same age. If found above its assumed to be younger and below, older.

The fossil record going back millions of years generally shows gradual changes over time within related species. Specifically fossils with large time differences show large differences, and fossils found to be from nearby time periods show small differences (between similar species). These observations are the same as those predicted by the theory of evolution and thus are said to provide support for it.

It is sad that scientists sometimes manipulate evidence but do not take a few bad ones to be representative of the whole.

_________________
ȁ̎̉̈̂̎͋̈́̍n͂͑̿ͥͣ́̓ġͤ͑ͯe͌̓̊ͩ͗̅l̽̓ͬͬͥ̊͗aͣ̔̃ͧ̓̾̾t͊̑̆hͤ͆̓̉̌ͣ̚e̋ͩ͒̈́ĭ̌̒̎ͧ̓̋ͪs̋ͤͧ̅̇̋̎ͫ̂̾ͨ̽̄ͫͯt͒͐̌ͭ̂̃ͪ̽ͣ͗̒ͣ

I believe keyser was going after something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY

To add my 2c, I always find it odd that creationists argue for theories that are easily disproven when science and religion are not necessarily at odds. why does 'god' have to be so involved in your daily lives and well being? why can't it just be some 'god' started the universe as a science project (pun intended) and wants to see how it turns out? evolution works because the system was designed to propagate itself towards more entropy.

if you accept that religious texts are not the actual word of god - which no sane preacher would disagree with - then you don't have to defend to the death every poorly translated phrase and morality fable. religious texts are fallible and imperfect, just like any other work of man (science included).

when people pretending to speak the true word of god make claims counter to common sense, all they're doing is dividing a population for their own self-betterment.. which doesn't seem very "Christian" to me.

and finally, there is no way to prove anything in life. it's all a matter of faith and belief; with certainty a false conceit. science, while not infallible, at least points you at set of evidence to back up theories.

edit: post number 333. I'll take it as a sign.

If we operate under these assumptions (which seem to be reasonable):
- There is a Prime Mover
- That Prime Mover remains active and does communicate with the universe.

It makes sense that at least some of the the beliefs systems we have are based on that communicatio. So, we need to look at how what they believe fits together. I think the next question is what makes the most sensee about the nature of a Prime Mover?

Basically, all belief systems fit into one of these categories:
1. No intelligent Prime Mover - Either everything is just matter following natural laws that it has followed for an infiinite time into the past, or the Prime Mover is some sort of mystical force but not an intelligent entity.

2. Multiple Prime Movers - This sort of by definition doesn't work, but seems to be common among local religions. If there is a being that existed before the universe, then why not more than one?

3. One intelligent Prime Mover who ultimately started everything and designed the natural laws that the universe follows.


Option 3 seems to make the most sense to me. The natural laws as we understand them would have prevented the Big Bang which the natural evidence seems to point to, so some outside act was required. That natural laws are universal suggests they were put in place as part of a single purpose.

If that is the case, we can start narrowing the field in terms of what could be actual communication vs superstition.

To me option 1 makes the most sense. Most scientific theories on the origin of the universe do not require some outside force to work. Although an outside force is possible by Occam's razor, the simplest theory is the most likely to be correct. Adding an outside force only makes the theory more complicated and adding intelligence or more attributes does not help.

If we assume there is an outside force that does communicate with people, it seems to operate very strangely. There are many contradictions within religions, between separate religion and between religions and science. Its also interesting to note that the amount of communication with higher powers has decreased drastically over time which to me suggests the large majority of it is superstition. Once we assume the majority is superstition, it is not unreasonable to assume that all of it (its the simplest explanation).

_________________
ȁ̎̉̈̂̎͋̈́̍n͂͑̿ͥͣ́̓ġͤ͑ͯe͌̓̊ͩ͗̅l̽̓ͬͬͥ̊͗aͣ̔̃ͧ̓̾̾t͊̑̆hͤ͆̓̉̌ͣ̚e̋ͩ͒̈́ĭ̌̒̎ͧ̓̋ͪs̋ͤͧ̅̇̋̎ͫ̂̾ͨ̽̄ͫͯt͒͐̌ͭ̂̃ͪ̽ͣ͗̒ͣ

Option 1 is inherently self-contradictory. If we assume natural laws continue to operate in the environment before the Big Bang, then the Big Bang never happens and instead we have a universe the size of a speck forever compressing tighter into itself.

The natural laws had to change somehow at that point for it to happen. What you have is based on faith as much as most religions are.

Once we eliminate the impossible, what is left must be true, however improbable.
(Although, we do need to continue to look for options we haven't considered.)

The natural laws do not contradict the theory of the big bang (no one would believe the theory if it were contradictory). The actual theory is pretty complicated to understand, its more than just a black hole, its an expansion of time and space.

_________________
ȁ̎̉̈̂̎͋̈́̍n͂͑̿ͥͣ́̓ġͤ͑ͯe͌̓̊ͩ͗̅l̽̓ͬͬͥ̊͗aͣ̔̃ͧ̓̾̾t͊̑̆hͤ͆̓̉̌ͣ̚e̋ͩ͒̈́ĭ̌̒̎ͧ̓̋ͪs̋ͤͧ̅̇̋̎ͫ̂̾ͨ̽̄ͫͯt͒͐̌ͭ̂̃ͪ̽ͣ͗̒ͣ

You know I don't have any good answers. Most of what I've read makes sense. Some of it from online and who knows whos opinion I'm reading and for what motive they state that opinion. Here are some things that make sense to me.

We make assumptions on books we havnt fully read and repeat what we've read and been told for the sake of argument.

As far as god. I can say something usefull. Growing up I went to a small pentacostal church called Praise Chappel. One day and evangelist came and had all the children in the church line up and face the congregation. He then prayed over each of us and we all spoke in tongues. I remember to this day the feeling and the words I spoke. "Hababaseeki-o." It was uncontrollable, as if I had no will or power to speak anything but that.

Next I remember repeating it, not to give praise but because I didn't want to be out done by another child speaking in tongues longer. Shame suddenly tremored through my body and I knew I would never speak in tongues again.

Whether or not I ever speak in tongues again is irrelevant. There are things science has yet to explain which I am witness to. I can feel in my chest the same over powering feeling from that day when I reflect on it. I know there is something greater and I think(know) its god. If you believe as well but wont admit it, go with this. "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Mathew 10:33

There is a large amount of evidence that the Big Bang did happen and I believe it did, but the evidence would still not be strong enough to convict in a court of law (It suffices for preponderance of evidence, but fails at a beyond reasonable doubt standard.)

How the universe got to that condition in the first place, what initiated the change from what should have been a stable condition, and whether it will continue to expand or will eventually re-contract under the force of gravity are unknowns and the subject of conflicting theories.

Black holes do distort the fabric of space and time. Prior to the Big Bang it seems that all physical matter was a single spectacularly massive but infinitesimally small black hole.

Rhetoric!



If by faith you simply mean belief, almost any stance on the existence of god is faith. The atheist or agnostic merely thinks that their beliefs are more reasonable/justified than yours. The only way for a stance on the existence of god to not be based on faith (barring logically contradictory gods) would for someone to experience god in such a direct way that makes it utterly impossible for his/her to doubt its existence, which is not something that the nature of my own consciousness currently allows, as far as I can tell.



This is just simply irrelevant. Since when did the strength of the evidence in a (which?) court of law had any importance, except within the court of law?

I'm an agnostic about higher-beings in general, but decidedly atheistic about versions of god that are as specific as the Christian god. It might be helpful to ask yourselves why your very specific experience with tongues has led you to believe in a particular version of the god-story as opposed to the other versions of the god-story. It's probably not reason, but pure faith, which is exactly what certain Christian religions (by religions i'm referring to its institutions and its adherents) tend to coerce others into, as what you seems to be doing by quoting that verse above as you did.

What Uber has written above is indeed useful, precisely because of the categorical mistake he has made. He does not 'know' that there is something greater, and he certainly doesn't '(know)' that that something-greater is god. If he did, it wouldn't be faith at all, but knowledge. It is useful because it shows the pathology of many theists to pass off their beliefs as knowable truths. You believe something that many others don't for whatever insticts/reasons/passions you have, you can just leave it at that. But if you want to justify your beliefs over others' beliefs, you'll need to do so much more constructively, and in danger of fundamentally undermining your own faith if you start thinking that your beliefs are based on reason, because they aren't.