Well, My Opinion Of The US Public Just Went Down Again...

[Mikey]

Either way, it's only 5,000 years closer to 65 million years ago.

[Nickswitz]

Unless its 5000 years closer to present day...

[Sionnach Glic]

Even if we assume everything dated is 5,000 years younger than the official figure, it's still more than sufficient to allow us to gauge the approximate era the object lived in. So even with that, we can conclude that the earliest discovered human remains are still far older than what is biblicaly stated.

Sorry, I was talking about the dinosaurs living when we were, I thought that Seafort I believe was talking about something else when I was rebutting his statement, but yes, I realize that there is almost no chance dinosaurs were around when humans were, and if any were they were probably only small ones, otherwise there would be some myths about them somewhere...

Alright then.

[Nickswitz]

Even if we assume everything dated is 5,000 years younger than the official figure, it's still more than sufficient to allow us to gauge the approximate era the object lived in. So even with that, we can conclude that the earliest discovered human remains are still far older than what is biblicaly stated.

Fair enough...

[stitch626]

Well, if we use 5000 years as the figure, then the bible would be spot on for human development, and nothing else is specified when they were created (unless your the 1 day = 1000 years type a person ).

On a side note, if the dinos were brought here, wouldn't they actually have breathing difficulties because of the sudden increase in oxygen?

[Lt. Staplic]

I don't see how, even if it was too much their blood would eventually become saturated and wouldn't absorb anymore.

[Nickswitz]

On a side note, if the dinos were brought here, wouldn't they actually have breathing difficulties because of the sudden increase in oxygen?

Wait, what????

[Tsukiyumi]

I imagine they'd all get pretty high.

[Lighthawk]

Didn't NASA use to give the astronauts 100% oxygen? They didn't seem to have any problems...except for that one time with the fire. Breathing wise though they were fine.

[Tyyr]

Yeah, it's not like you can OD on it. There's a limit to what you can use.

[Lazar]

Didn't NASA use to give the astronauts 100% oxygen? They didn't seem to have any problems...except for that one time with the fire. Breathing wise though they were fine.

Yes, they used 100% oxygen until Apollo 1, when it was one of the factors (along with a crew compartment full of flammable material, and an inward opening hatch) which contributed to the three astronauts burning to death.

[IanKennedy]

Yeah. I've never understood people who take Genesis completely litterally. In addition to what Tsu said when Cain was going to be kicked out he was worried about other people killing him. So there were already, well, other people around.


Hurm. Anybody know when Jews first show up historically? I mean the religion/ethnicity/culture had to get started off somewhere sometime, and it had to be thousands of years ago.

@Ian You can say that you don't feel abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution, what I'm telling you is over here the two are generally convoluted together.

As I said before if that is the case then they are at best wrong and at worst morons or lying.

In addition the experimentally falsifiable aspects of the theory, such as genetics and minor mutations, are combined with what is closer to forensic science and that is not reproducable.

In part you are trying to combine what some people call "hard science" and "soft science". They have theories in political, social, and economic science, however often they are accepted by some community, certainly getting through peer review, before they could ever possibly be tested, if they can even be tested at all.

political, social, and economic science are not science and would never be taught in a science classroom, please don't try and get around issued by brining things outside of science into the discussions.

[stitch626]

political, social, and economic science are not science and would never be taught in a science classroom, please don't try and get around issued by brining things outside of science into the discussions.

Actually they would be in an all encompassing science classroom. But not in a biology classroom for example. Just like geology doesn't get taught in a physics room. The fact is there is no all encompassing science class.
The reason theology shouldn't be taught in a biology class is because it isn't biology, no more than astronomy is.

[IanKennedy]

political, social, and economic science are not science and would never be taught in a science classroom, please don't try and get around issued by brining things outside of science into the discussions.

Actually they would be in an all encompassing science classroom. But not in a biology classroom for example. Just like geology doesn't get taught in a physics room. The fact is there is no all encompassing science class.
The reason theology shouldn't be taught in a biology class is because it isn't biology, no more than astronomy is.

No, sorry that is not the case. No science classroom would ever teach economics. We have science classes in the UK, rather than Physics, Biology and Chemistry. In fact Graham teaches that subject. There is no way on earth that economics, politics etc would ever be taught in his class. It's not part of the national science curriculum for a start. It is taught in schools but it's not science.

[Mikey]

I think part of the confusion is the use of the same term for the social sciences and "hard" sciences. However, a good teacher will explore the areas of crossover; it isn't inconceivable, for example, for an anthropology teacher to examine how geology, meteorology, botany, and zoology affect the traits of a particular culture.

I agree with Ian in the sense that I believe he's getting at the idea that a "science" curriculum would not include the social sciences as part of its coursework.