Thread
My girlfriend thinks the earth is 4000 years old
Make that my xgirlfriend. That was the last straw. When I met her she claimed to be a science geek like me. She's majoring in a biological field (wildlife management), she loves adventuring in the outdoors and she is extremely intelligent. When I first met her she seemed nearly perfect...
But strangely we didn't agree on many scientific issues. For example, she thinks it is ridiculous that one of her classmates considers humans an invasive species. Hmmm, ridiculous eh?
She also seemed to have an extreme dislike for philosophical thought, especially existentialism...oh well, I thought I could live with that, although it seemed strange that a scientist wouldn't be interested in such important topics (to science geeks) as the philosophy of scientific thinking.
Still, it seemed like everytime we'd get into a scientific discussion she'd get a little angry or frustrated at some point....
A few weeks ago I found out why. She admitted that she doesn't believe in evolution. Ok. Umm, well I didn't expect that...
That really changed things for me. She went from being someone I felt could really relate to me (even if she didn't agree) into someone I had to be very careful not to offend. Then she told me that in 'her world' the earth is only 4000 years old. She tried to quote scientific evidence to prove this... Eck. Well, that was fun while it lasted. I broke up with her.
I think it is sick that someone would hide something like that for so long from someone they cared about.
I feel used.
But strangely we didn't agree on many scientific issues. For example, she thinks it is ridiculous that one of her classmates considers humans an invasive species. Hmmm, ridiculous eh?
She also seemed to have an extreme dislike for philosophical thought, especially existentialism...oh well, I thought I could live with that, although it seemed strange that a scientist wouldn't be interested in such important topics (to science geeks) as the philosophy of scientific thinking.
Still, it seemed like everytime we'd get into a scientific discussion she'd get a little angry or frustrated at some point....
A few weeks ago I found out why. She admitted that she doesn't believe in evolution. Ok. Umm, well I didn't expect that...
That really changed things for me. She went from being someone I felt could really relate to me (even if she didn't agree) into someone I had to be very careful not to offend. Then she told me that in 'her world' the earth is only 4000 years old. She tried to quote scientific evidence to prove this... Eck. Well, that was fun while it lasted. I broke up with her.
I think it is sick that someone would hide something like that for so long from someone they cared about.
I feel used.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Scientist: Make that my xgirlfriend. That was the last straw. When I met her she claimed to be a science geek like me. She's majoring in a biological field (wildlife management), she loves adventuring in the outdoors and she is extremely intelligent. When I first met her she seemed nearly perfect... But strangely we didn't agree on many scientific issues. For example, she thinks it is ridiculous that one of her classmates considers humans an invasive species. Hmmm, ridiculous eh? She also seemed to have an extreme dislike for philosophical thought, especially existentialism...oh well, I thought I could live with that, although it seemed strange that a scientist wouldn't be interested in such important topics (to science geeks) as the philosophy of scientific thinking. Still, it seemed like everytime we'd get into a scientific discussion she'd get a little angry or frustrated at some point.... A few weeks ago I found out why. She admitted that she doesn't believe in evolution. Ok. Umm, well I didn't expect that... That really changed things for me. She went from being someone I felt could really relate to me (even if she didn't agree) into someone I had to be very careful not to offend. Then she told me that in 'her world' the earth is only 4000 years old. She tried to quote scientific evidence to prove this... Eck. Well, that was fun while it lasted. I broke up with her. I think it is sick that someone would hide something like that for so long from someone they cared about. I feel used. |
beware of people believing in creationism.
Don't feel too bad about being taken for a ride. If she's managed to get through a biology-related major and still dismiss one of the fundamental tenets of the subject, she's got to be very practiced at deception, both of herself and her professors.
Don't get upset over it. Be happy - you just dodged a bullet.
Christian_Science = oxymoron;
Christian_Science != science;
while(sanity==true)
{
earth_age > 4000;
evolution = true;
religion = false;
wang = true;
}
Christian_Science != science;
while(sanity==true)
{
earth_age > 4000;
evolution = true;
religion = false;
wang = true;
}
Quote:
| Then she told me that in 'her world' the earth is only 4000 years old. She tried to quote scientific evidence to prove this... |
:: i can feel the flames comin' on right now ::
muahahahahahaha
btw, just out of curiosity, how was she in bed? or did that not matter?
damn bible freaks.
Sorry to hear about the break-up...I think.
Unfortunately, your ex-gf is not alone. My roommate in my first year of college believed in creationism as well. She even had a 100 page book to disprove evolution! 100 pages!!! Not to insult anyone who does believe in creationism, but if one were to try and disprove EVOLUTION (of all things), I would assume it would take more than 100 pages to do so!
Oh well...
Unfortunately, your ex-gf is not alone. My roommate in my first year of college believed in creationism as well. She even had a 100 page book to disprove evolution! 100 pages!!! Not to insult anyone who does believe in creationism, but if one were to try and disprove EVOLUTION (of all things), I would assume it would take more than 100 pages to do so!
Oh well...
Breaking up over something so stupid?
Give me a break.
Chris
Give me a break.
Chris
Quote:
|
Originally posted by kmkkid: Breaking up over something so stupid? Give me a break. |
Something like that would be a big deal for me. I mean, it's a pretty major philisophical difference. And hard to overlook if you're both scientists.
what the hell are you talking about canadian boy? there was obviously a huge clash in beliefs. he's a scientist. shes a christian scientist. they aren't the same. they have totally opposite beliefs.
The funny thing is, I'm sure the evidence she presented for her take was at least as compelling, if not more compelling than the evidence you may have given for evolution. Observational science is all over the Bible. The first scientists (knowing this is a creation) knew that all things are calculated. That is to say, they were deliberate and predictable. They then went about trying to answer these questions. Newton, etc... were among the first and most influential Christian Scrientists and believed whole-heartedly in a Divine Creator. Don't simply cast these folks off as whackos. I'm sorry to hear honest debate couldn't be had between you two and that she was easily offended.
I guess it depends upon which you believe. (i.e. Micro vs Macro or both in harmony) Ultimitely, matter cannot break down and increase in complexity. Nowhere is this true. Nor is it true in the origination of mankind. I suppose you can deny it, but you are then denying the very craft of science itself. Observation.
Dating methods are theories at best and more holes have been found in them than swiss cheese. These are all taught to you as fact from the time you are old enough to read yet nowhere do you see an opposing argument. Arguments like archeologists findings of fossilzed remains of dinosaurs with spears in their sides or rocks dated to be billions of years old except for the small man-made hammer in the center, or the fact that remains cannot be fossilized by pressure alone, but requires full submersion in water. (i.e. flood) The Bible often refers to large animals; elephants, giraffes, and Behomoths. (clearly separated as terrible beasts in some cases and unique from the other large animals.) I mean, let's cut through it here, this girl was clearly a Christian. I have a hunch science wasn't the only bone of contention between the two of you.
The fact is; as a Christian in a secular school (unless you want to be a complete pain in the ass) has to "suck it up". It is very easy for someone to believe one thing and still get an "A" in another. Doesn't mean that they have to believe it as true. Was your class open to debate regarding your Professor's instruction? I doubt it.
In short, I'm sorry you dumped her. You could've learned a lot. Although, I'm not sure where she gets 4000 years as it's more likely a little older than 6000. If however, you don't believe man here on earth to be God's greatest and most precious creation, it would be easy to separate you from your Creator by several billion years.
Again; (and I can't be clear enough) There is compelling evidence out there that will change the entire way of how you view things. It requires an open mind and a lot of research. there are only three types of people who come to Christ; Those that develop carreers trying to refute the truth and finally give up, those who believed in the first place and got to studying, and lastly those that believed all along because they were told to and live luke-warm lives. Most of us fall in the latter. We believe the Bible and it's words are true when it suits us and that there is no great big guy in the sky making all things come together for good. Although we witness evil each day we do not believe true evil exists. We live comfy, complacent lives where nothing is deeper than our back yards. Personally, I'm really glad the earth isn't as old as most suggest because at the current rate of earth's separation from the sun, we would not be here to enjoy a warm day. This is the time of year to be thankful for sure!
Oh, and in reply to someone's statement that it should take more than 100 pages to refute evolution, you obviously don't have kids. The truth generally requires 1/8th the fluff of BS.
I guess it depends upon which you believe. (i.e. Micro vs Macro or both in harmony) Ultimitely, matter cannot break down and increase in complexity. Nowhere is this true. Nor is it true in the origination of mankind. I suppose you can deny it, but you are then denying the very craft of science itself. Observation.
Dating methods are theories at best and more holes have been found in them than swiss cheese. These are all taught to you as fact from the time you are old enough to read yet nowhere do you see an opposing argument. Arguments like archeologists findings of fossilzed remains of dinosaurs with spears in their sides or rocks dated to be billions of years old except for the small man-made hammer in the center, or the fact that remains cannot be fossilized by pressure alone, but requires full submersion in water. (i.e. flood) The Bible often refers to large animals; elephants, giraffes, and Behomoths. (clearly separated as terrible beasts in some cases and unique from the other large animals.) I mean, let's cut through it here, this girl was clearly a Christian. I have a hunch science wasn't the only bone of contention between the two of you.
The fact is; as a Christian in a secular school (unless you want to be a complete pain in the ass) has to "suck it up". It is very easy for someone to believe one thing and still get an "A" in another. Doesn't mean that they have to believe it as true. Was your class open to debate regarding your Professor's instruction? I doubt it.
In short, I'm sorry you dumped her. You could've learned a lot. Although, I'm not sure where she gets 4000 years as it's more likely a little older than 6000. If however, you don't believe man here on earth to be God's greatest and most precious creation, it would be easy to separate you from your Creator by several billion years.
Again; (and I can't be clear enough) There is compelling evidence out there that will change the entire way of how you view things. It requires an open mind and a lot of research. there are only three types of people who come to Christ; Those that develop carreers trying to refute the truth and finally give up, those who believed in the first place and got to studying, and lastly those that believed all along because they were told to and live luke-warm lives. Most of us fall in the latter. We believe the Bible and it's words are true when it suits us and that there is no great big guy in the sky making all things come together for good. Although we witness evil each day we do not believe true evil exists. We live comfy, complacent lives where nothing is deeper than our back yards. Personally, I'm really glad the earth isn't as old as most suggest because at the current rate of earth's separation from the sun, we would not be here to enjoy a warm day. This is the time of year to be thankful for sure!
Oh, and in reply to someone's statement that it should take more than 100 pages to refute evolution, you obviously don't have kids. The truth generally requires 1/8th the fluff of BS.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Scientist: I think it is sick that someone would hide something like that for so long from someone they cared about. I feel used. |
Compassionate Conservatives need sex too. bwahaha
Yet another religious based thread started by the anti-religious crowd.
Didn't we put this to rest a few weeks back?
It's too bad your relationship had to end. My wife and I disagree on many topics, some of them fundamental. But we love each other and work at the relationship.
If two people agree on everything, what is the sense in having a relationship with someone who is basically you?
Didn't we put this to rest a few weeks back?
It's too bad your relationship had to end. My wife and I disagree on many topics, some of them fundamental. But we love each other and work at the relationship.
If two people agree on everything, what is the sense in having a relationship with someone who is basically you?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by fireside: christian scientist |
Nice oxymoron
Quote:
|
Originally posted by ebuddy: as it's more likely a little older than 6000. |
errm, NO!
We at least being broken up is better than being in the friend zone:
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Kilbey: Yet another religious based thread started by the anti-religious crowd. Didn't we put this to rest a few weeks back? It's too bad your relationship had to end. My wife and I disagree on many topics, some of them fundamental. But we love each other and work at the relationship. If two people agree on everything, what is the sense in having a relationship with someone who is basically you? |
So your kids won't be confused or creationists.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by RooneyX: So your kids won't be confused or creationists. |
Teach them both. Let them decide. Or are you of the brainwashing camp?
Scientist,
sorry to hear about your break-up - but a big
to you for sticking to your principles - I would've done the same thing.
ebuddy,
I don't want to hijack the thread - a link and/or source that proves that carbon-dating is bogus would be much appreciated.
sorry to hear about your break-up - but a big
to you for sticking to your principles - I would've done the same thing.
Quote:
| (...) I'm not sure where she gets 4000 years as it's more likely a little older than 6000 (...) |
I don't want to hijack the thread - a link and/or source that proves that carbon-dating is bogus would be much appreciated.
ebuddy: perhaps you can enlighten us, because I fail to see any connection between the thoughts you posted and a compelling refutation of evolution...
I'm with Scientist, it's difficult to overcome such fundamental differences of opinion in a relationship.
I'm with Scientist, it's difficult to overcome such fundamental differences of opinion in a relationship.
Here's a questions for those who believe it is impossible to "overcome such fundamental differences of opinion in a relationship".:
Are any of you married, or currently in a long-term relationship?
Are any of you married, or currently in a long-term relationship?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Kilbey: Here's a questions for those who believe it is impossible to "overcome such fundamental differences of opinion in a relationship".: Are any of you married, or currently in a long-term relationship? |
Love conquers all.
Chris
Kilbey wrote:
uhm, yeah - married, nearly a decade and still going stronger than ever. Love her to death.
What's your point?
Quote:
| Are any of you married, or currently in a long-term relationship? |
What's your point?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by effgee: ebuddy, I don't want to hijack the thread - a link and/or source that proves that carbon-dating is bogus would be much appreciated. |
http://www.contenderministries.org/...on/carbon14.php
Quote:
| "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted�._ No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.� |
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections...geek991111.html
Quote:
|
There are some problems with carbon dating. One is that it can measure the age of objects only back to the equivalent of 10 carbon-14 half-lives, or about 60,000 years. Beyond that, there isn�t enough carbon-14 remaining to measure accurately. In addition, carbon-14 dating doesn�t work for fossils, in which all of the organic matter has been replaced by minerals. It Goes Only So Far Another problem for researchers is that the percentage of carbon-14 in the atmosphere actually varies over time. The burning of fossil fuels this century has increased the amount of carbon-14, for example. During periods of high sunspot activity, Earth is bombarded by higher levels of cosmic rays, which increases the percentage carbon-14. ____ To account for these variations, researchers have turned to trees to calibrate their measurements. By measuring the percentage of carbon-14 in each ring of very old trees, scientists have been able to come up with a pretty good picture of the carbon-14 concentration in the atmosphere going back about 11,000 years. |
Just the first couple links I found Googling. There are more if you feel so inclined.
Anyways, I don't think carbon-dating is accurate enough to tell the age of the earth, because of the flaws that it inherently contains.
Effgee, are you serious? You want evidence that carbon-dating is flawed? You sound like you've never heard of this before. With all due respect my friend this is like a known-fact nowadays even among those who use it for simple-dating. That is, after 3000 years it becomes flawed. It depends entirely on atmospheric pressure being constant when it's been anything, but. Also, the samples have to use varied methodology depending on their environment. This poses yet another accuracy problem. You can't use one calculation, you have to use several and the science is ever-changing. If you aren't familiar with where I'm headed on this, your belief need not be enabled by me. Keep in mind BTW it is still referred to as "The Theory of Evolution". Don't take it from me. When your dog dies, have the bones carbon-dated.
for the sake of fun and nothing more;
you could be wrong
keep reading
and one more
Now, you're going to say; "but these are all Creationist sites". Don't bother reading then. All of what you and I have learned growing up was fed to us as fact by Evolutionists. There are opposing views you do not get the benefit of knowing. Now you have them.
for the sake of fun and nothing more;
you could be wrong
keep reading
and one more
Now, you're going to say; "but these are all Creationist sites". Don't bother reading then. All of what you and I have learned growing up was fed to us as fact by Evolutionists. There are opposing views you do not get the benefit of knowing. Now you have them.
Here we go again.
Evolutionists think they're right. Ironic when the amount of what they KNOW (not just guess) is pathetically small. None of its been proven.
How old the earth is is unimportant. If it counts neither side can decide.
I get the feeling this issue will never go away. Scientists think they're right. All I know is this arrogant attitude is not right and its not going anywhere. You may be right, but atleast we're civil.
I would kindly ass that this has nothing to do with evolution. Its about a guy who feels wronged because his gf has different beliefs than him. Throwing away a relationship like that is just stupid, I would never do that. Maybe I'm just an idealist but I think if you HAVE to be right you have a problem.
As for myself, evolution has been wrong many times. Its been revised so much it hurts. The fact remains both sides have evidence but no proof. This is not what I call scientific fact.
Evolutionists think they're right. Ironic when the amount of what they KNOW (not just guess) is pathetically small. None of its been proven.
How old the earth is is unimportant. If it counts neither side can decide.
I get the feeling this issue will never go away. Scientists think they're right. All I know is this arrogant attitude is not right and its not going anywhere. You may be right, but atleast we're civil.
I would kindly ass that this has nothing to do with evolution. Its about a guy who feels wronged because his gf has different beliefs than him. Throwing away a relationship like that is just stupid, I would never do that. Maybe I'm just an idealist but I think if you HAVE to be right you have a problem.
As for myself, evolution has been wrong many times. Its been revised so much it hurts. The fact remains both sides have evidence but no proof. This is not what I call scientific fact.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Steve: http://www.contenderministries.org/...on/carbon14.php http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections...geek991111.html Just the first couple links I found Googling. There are more if you feel so inclined. Anyways, I don't think carbon-dating is accurate enough to tell the age of the earth, because of the flaws that it inherently contains. |
Carbon dating is not nearly accurate enough to reveal the age of the earth but other methods are.
http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/g...eo102/radio.htm
Carbon-14 dating is not used for judging the age of the earth. I'm no geologist, but I know the dating methods are calibrated, verified and tested against eachother for accuracy. I can't testify to the extent of the accuracy but I have heard it is rather good.
Carbon 14 dating has proven to be quite accurate (within its limits) using corroborating evidences from other dating methods including, in some cases, information from tree rings, history books, etc.
buddy: perhaps you can enlighten us, because I fail to see any connection between the thoughts you posted and a compelling refutation of evolution...
I guess I could be a jerk and ask you to defend the inherant flaws of carbon-dating, but that would be just baiting you. I already know what they are and they are simply to inconsistent for me to accept as stable science. I submit to you Itai that you are not to be enlightened. You are already ominiscient in your ideal and have no need for more information. There is nothing I could say to you that would refute what you believe. Hence, it is a belief in a theory afterall. I guess we all have religion to explain things.
In regards to what's his face breaking up with what's her face...that wasn't the intent of the thread. I addressed the intent of the thread. I told him I was sorry the two couldn't work it out. He could've learned something. You disagree no doubt.
I guess I could be a jerk and ask you to defend the inherant flaws of carbon-dating, but that would be just baiting you. I already know what they are and they are simply to inconsistent for me to accept as stable science. I submit to you Itai that you are not to be enlightened. You are already ominiscient in your ideal and have no need for more information. There is nothing I could say to you that would refute what you believe. Hence, it is a belief in a theory afterall. I guess we all have religion to explain things.
In regards to what's his face breaking up with what's her face...that wasn't the intent of the thread. I addressed the intent of the thread. I told him I was sorry the two couldn't work it out. He could've learned something. You disagree no doubt.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by ebuddy: rocks dated to be billions of years old except for the small man-made hammer in the center, |
Ever thought that perhaps the rock is a billion(or million) years old, then later in history(tens of thousand years ago) humanoids came up with the idea that they would make a hammer out of the billion years old rock? It is highly unlikely that they would take fresh floating lava and make a hammer out of it.
Quote:
|
Although, I'm not sure where she gets 4000 years as it's more likely a little older than 6000. |
Could you back that up in anyway? Iceland(which is a very new land) is older than 6000 years. Infact the oldest rocks on Iceland are 16 mill years old. If not, please back that statement up.
Quote:
|
Again; (and I can't be clear enough) There is compelling evidence out there that will change the entire way of how you view things. It requires an open mind and a lot of research. |
Could you show just one of those "compelling evidence"? Just one. And there is one other thing wrong with that sentance. One of the main rules in science is IIRC called in english, reduction. It has been proven, again and again, that most of the time the easiest "answer" is the most correct answer. You can find some facts that back up anything if you look hard enough, but that doesn't make it correct. I could "prove" to you that our solar system is just an atom in another "world", but we all "know" that isn't true.
Quote:
|
Personally, I'm really glad the earth isn't as old as most suggest because at the current rate of earth's separation from the sun, we would not be here to enjoy a warm day. This is the time of year to be thankful for sure! |
Some info on that comment please from a respectable source. And after a comment like that I have to ask you how much you know about the physics of planetary orbitals. Just asking.
I find it very disturbing that one of the biggest religions in the world has such a conservative stance on science still today. It is IMO working against God's greatest gift to man, that is the free mind and curiosity. This is one of the reasons I have chosen another religion(or it chose me), because that religion demands that the human seeks knowledge, instead of hindering it.
Oh, and to the original poster:
You could have used that difference in opinion to debate with the girl you like, and mentally stimulate each other. Dumping her because she is religious seems pretty shallow to me. But that is of course IMHO
ps.
to Kilbey.Disclaimer: I've been awake for 27 hours, but I'm going to check out if that post of mine makes any sense