How is the existence of all of the species I mentioned anything less than definitive? Species can crossbreed with very different species under some conditions. Earlier you claimed that it never occurred, I provided proof that it does. Inter-genus breeding is rare, but it does occur. My point with the Xenoturbella is that our categorization system is one of convenience and isn't set in stone. It changes frequently.

No, it is evidence that it can occur and there is an explanation for how that doesn't require a god. You wanted evidence of intergenus breeding, so I supplied that and went a step further with this example of interkingdom breeding. I thought it was particularly appropriate considering your flippant remarks earlier regarding plants.

1. I showed clear evidence of a species that evolved by crossbreeding with a plant, a half dozen examples of interspecies crossbreeding, interfamilial crossbreeding, intergenus crossbreeding and a species that. What other evidence do you want?

2. I am not attempting to prove that God didn't create any of it. I am merely attempting to prove that what you claimed earlier is impossible is in fact possible. You will always be able to say "Well yeah, but God created it" no matter what evidence I provide. The statement is not falsifiable. At most, I can point out that there is absolutely no evidence that a god created any of it so saying "God created it" is equal to claiming that a unicorn created it. 

3. Of course not. The evidence suggests that it is possible, but I believe it is more probable that life came from multiple sources. With the tools available to us right now, it is impossible to know for sure and quite possible that we will never know for sure.    

 

Which ones? 

It is more than a stretch, it is a ridiculously long leap, but it is what you are suggesting. You suggest that a culture existed 2 million+ years ago that had technology on par with civilizations 3 thousand years ago but somehow managed to avoid leaving any evidence of their technological advancement. We aren't talking about a single invention, we are talking about the disappearence of thousands of inventions and discoveries that wouldn't be remade for millions of years. That is a ridiculously long leap.

Heat doesn't help wine, it destroys it. Extended exposure to temperatures above 80 degrees will damage the wine and prevent fermentation, temperatures below 70 degrees will cause the fermentation to be too slow and prevent the process. In both cases, you end up with spoiled grape juice. That is another reason why wine wasn't discovered until after people started storing their food in controlled temperatures. (And another reason why clay was particularly conducive to making wine because it maintains a more stable temperature.)  

I've never heard a meteorologist suggest that geological studies, ice cores and tree rings as less than legitimate. Is there any such evidence that points to the kind of massive storms you suggest? 

Because you have made a number of assertions about various topics that were incorrect and I don't have the personal knowledge to be able to separate what is supported and what is just a naked assertion. Since you claim knowledge in the field, it should be easy to point me towards academic sources that support what you are claiming. 

So what evidence do you have that the sustained rain you are claiming is possible?

From what I've noticed, that kind of chain of storms has never occurred during any season anywhere in the world. 

Yes, "severe" floods have occured many times in history and we have evidence of them. The story of Noah isn't about a severe flood, it is about a flood that is hundreds of times larger than the most severe floods we have evidence of that somehow didn't leave any evidence even if we accept your interpretation that the flood was much more local than the bible says.  

really?!   I must've gotten lucky then

instead of responding with such dead end comments, why not defend yourself a bit?

you wanted to look at it from an unrealistic standpoint, so I turned the tables.  You can choose to do anything humanly possible.

that's logic of research... if they cared about being rich over achieving thier passion, they could focus on a carreer path that has higher opportunity... that's not an excuse for not bieng rich.. it is a choice they made.

then why haven't you chosen world peace for us all yet?  I haven't because I didn't realize i could choose that for us all

good one... you've convinced me now!

oh, so you're choosing what I believe for me now...

predestination would still require an action by that omnipotent, omniscient, immortal creator god.

well, which is it, theory or fact?

you mean like you do with God?

they may have been ignorant, but they were good scribes... taht's all they really had to do. only minimal understanding required.

ok great, When you see it, how would you know that evidence was of God?

ok, well just to say, the beginning part of your statement is basically proof that you've already decided

 So let's just take Christianity out of the equation.  Just like I tell others opposing my religion but whom have their own, let's figure out what "God" is first and agree on that.  

For us, we'd have to figure out what would show you there is an existence outside the physical.

well, he has reached billions actually..

 I mean look at it without a shield over your eyes.  You know how it goes, if you look at something, but don't know what you're looking for, then you're likely not going to see what is being pointed out.

 It's like taking an amateur into a science lab and telling them to look into a microscope and describe what they see.

To give you the faith to see what is real,

As I said, we need to step way back from the religions of the world and look at what God is and isn't.  When and if you can accept that God is real, then we can discuss religions.  The Bible will not speak to you unless you know of God first.  This is my understanding.  As for what to show you... that's always the biggest challenge.  Are you expecting evidence to be physical or visual?  Are you going to dismiss all evidence that would be others experiences and eye-witness accounts?

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

and what are the odds of all that being planned?  Created that way if you will?  And based on what?  I only ask that based on the idea that the "odds" we are talking about are quite small.

The odds of it being planned are impossible to calculate since there is zero evidence of a being that would be capable of planning and creating it is even possible let alone all the variables that would be involved with such a being coming into existence. It is odd that you scoff at odds that we can calculate fairly accurately because we have observable examples, but then posit a being capable of controlling everything without ever considering how such a being could even come into existence.

This is all going way beyond this thread, but that's just it.. you have nothing to prove or refute God... it's kind of a dead end if you have nothing on either end.  

To even talk about God coming into existence would automatically assume we could calculate time before the Big Bang if in fact it existed.  Einstein proved that it is us moving through time, not the other way around... if God isn't moving through time, would He have always existed?  how does something come to be outside of time?  kind of a similar question when you ask a scientist where all the matter in the universe came from... most say it was always there.. but how is that possible, it must have been created at some point right?

 The reason we're discussing evolution is because it has implications on the flood story. I will discuss those in closer detail below. 

 Seriously, are you deliberately this dense? "one type to another". It happens gradually. We can demonstrate it in organisms with short life spans. Change of DNA in organisms with longer lifespans doesn't work any differently, hence we have no reason to believe that this amount of change wouldn't occur given the same number of generations (or some magnitude more or less, as I personally do not know if the rate of change is identical across all life, or if it varies). 

 No it doesn't. If abiogenesis occurred multiple times, we would expect to find a genetic code that differs on a very fundamental level. This is the conclusion reached by science alone. Science can not comment on the supernatural unless it affects the natural world in a way we can measure. The common ancestor theory wasn't something where we said "in the beginning, there must have been a single life form from which we all came". Common ancestry is a conclusion based on evidence alone. You seem to believe in some parts of the theory of evolution but not all. You also refuse to be concise on where that line is. So, where is it? 

Progressive species or progessive fossils? I'm confused as to what you mean. Could you provide me an example of a hypothetical progressive species/fossil?

 Good. Universal common descent is part of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In order to attempt to separate one from the other, you would have to find another explanation for homology (both in appearance and DNA), and how we all appear to be one big gigantic family tree. 

Yes. Yes we are. We are predicting the inbetween colours, and finding them at later times. It is not exactly orange, but a shade that's maybe a bit more yellow than red, but orange nonetheless. You can refuse to accept that if you wish, but you would be wrong. As I outlined with Tiktaalik, we find things we expect to all the time! Since fossilization doesn't occur in every situation, we expect to have some small links missing fossil-wise. Luckily, DNA and homology tell us the rest of the story. 

You see, the reason I'm asking the questions below, is it will help us get a date on the earliest possible time the flood could have occurred. You would have to say that humans were on it, right? If we figure out how old humans can be, then from there we can deduce that the flood must have happened no more than (x) years ago. Once we figure that out, we can deduce whether or not it is plausible that the ancestors of all animals (and land plants, and possibly fish depending on water salinization levels during the flood) could have fit on an ark.

Ok. How about homo erectus?

dictionary.com wrote:

noun

 

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of theuniverse, especially when considered as the creation of asuperhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotionaland ritual observances, and often containing a moral codegoverning the conduct of human affairs. Also, the theory of evolution is not a set of beliefs. It is a body of knowledge based on observed evidence and inferences made from that evidence. It's not a religion, no matter how badly you wish it was in order for your argument to be valid.

so you like how I kept it relevent by copying and pasting the part of the definition that strictly and concisely explained it rather than going onto the "especially" part that implies it usually is associated, but not always with the following huh... why didn't you post the rest of the definitions too?2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons orsects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.5. So, using all the definitions now, I don't think you can deny that due to the "body of knowledge based on observed evidence" that a "body of persons adhereing to a particular set of beliefs and practices" doesn't apply to science and evolution be it that the practices are observational studies and the belief is the conclusion based on the observation.  In order for it to be fact, one would have to "believe" it.  I really don't want any of it to be religion, but the definitions speak for themselves.  You can try to make it look like I want it to be one way or another, but again remember that I"m here to allow people to challenge what i know.  If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, just ask anyone who has  conversed with me from the beginning of my time on this website.  It is what it is.    

jabberwocky wrote:

I'll just leave this alone. Your response to my post was both evasive and badly written. But as we've said, these are getting long. If you don't feel like replying in full, respond to whichever parts you like, but be sure to respond to my bolded posts, as I don't want those lines of discussion to dissipate. 

When the answer is not to your liking, you call it evasive.  When I don't sway on my answer, you call it badly written.  Maybe you don't understand, maybe it's not an answer you like, but I've told you before I"m not evading... and I'm pretty sure if I was... you wouldn't be talking to me still.

In post #424 on the previous page I made six links. All of which were natural observations, none of them forced in a lab. Although, if you want to go that route, laboratory testing has shown that interbreeding is possible on a scale generally not seen in nature. Animals prefer to mate with similar animals, but deprived of a mate, they will attempt to interbreed with almost anything. Regardless, we have a plethora of examples of naturally occuring hybrids, some of which are at the familial level. We have the sea slug that took genes from algae and is now able to photosynthesize like a plant (it should be noted that further research has shown that it doesn't actually use the energy created by the process) that occurred naturally, not forced in a lab. You can't get more genetically seperated than a plant and animal interbreeding. That is pretty damn definitive that it is possible. With the link about the skinks, I showed that such wide scale interbreeding probably wasn't neccessary as half of the skink population has developed live birth, one of the things that diffetentiates reptiles and mammals. That wasn't done in a lab, it occurred naturally, and those types of small mutations expanding over time is probably what caused our various diverse classes of animals today.

 

I am  not trying to  disprove god. You believe despite having zero evidence, so no amount of evidence will convince you. I can only prove that your falsifiable claims are false, such as the claim that intergenus breeding is impossible or your claim that a giant flood wiped out all life on the planet.

 

By continuing to test our theories and changing them when they are wrong. The difference between me and you is that what I believe could be disproven, and if it was, I would abandon it faster than a stripper when John runs out of money. For example, if we found strong evidence that genes actually don't matter and there is some other material that actual determines our make up and someone can create a model that has more accurate predictive power with a better explanation for how changes occur, I will change my beliefs. If someone shows that gravity is actually caused by something like dark matter and all our observations regarding the relation of mass and gravity are coincidence,  I will abandon my belief in the theory of gravity. If someone could provide evidence that a massive global flood occurred and wiped out all life on the planet, I would change my belief that such a flood never occurred. I consider all of these unlikely, but I can imagine what kind of evidence  would be needed. 

Is there any kind of evidence you could imagine that would convince you your belief in God is wrong? Considering how strongly you cling to the Ark story despite strong evidence against it, I doubt anything would ever be enough.

 

All that link does is list severe weather, none of which was even in the ballpark of Noah's flood. If we know all those floods happened, how does that suggest we wouldn't know if Noah's flood happened? Seems to me that since we know about all these small floods is evidence we should know about a much larger flood.

Only after I called you out on it and linked to evidence that you were wrong. Since I don't have knowledge in this area or a list of handy bookmarks, I am asking you to provide references to support your assertions.

None of which is even in the ballpark of the 72inches a day you said would be needed for 40 days. The rainiest place on Earth is in India, and you are talking about sustained rains that are exponentially more than even their extreme. You are talking about 2.8 times more rain in 40 days than they had in their most extreme year ever observed.

The tropics are closer to the Sahara Desert than to the amount of rainfall that would be required. Are you seriously incapable of undersyanding that a lot of rain, isn't proof that infinite rain is possible? Indeed, I strongly suspect that if I were speaking to a meteorologist they could explain why such a storm would be physically impossible under all of our current models.

Beyond Saving wrote:

In post #424 on the previous page I made six links. All of which were natural observations, none of them forced in a lab. Although, if you want to go that route, laboratory testing has shown that interbreeding is possible on a scale generally not seen in nature. Animals prefer to mate with similar animals, but deprived of a mate, they will attempt to interbreed with almost anything. Regardless, we have a plethora of examples of naturally occuring hybrids, some of which are at the familial level. We have the sea slug that took genes from algae and is now able to photosynthesize like a plant (it should be noted that further research has shown that it doesn't actually use the energy created by the process) that occurred naturally, not forced in a lab. You can't get more genetically seperated than a plant and animal interbreeding. That is pretty damn definitive that it is possible. With the link about the skinks, I showed that such wide scale interbreeding probably wasn't neccessary as half of the skink population has developed live birth, one of the things that diffetentiates reptiles and mammals. That wasn't done in a lab, it occurred naturally, and those types of small mutations expanding over time is probably what caused our various diverse classes of animals today.

I saw the links... the forced in a lab stuff doesn't prove anything to me, only that we have the capability of manipulating DNA.  

Hybrids have happened all the time, look at the donkey... but the question is, does that mean everything came from a common ancestor?  if so how?

 because it's possible for things to interbreed?  A sea slug took genes from algae and can no photosynthesize... ok, but it doesn't use the energy created... so what was the purpose of that adaptation?  

How do they determine the genes were taken and what exactly takes place in the slug?

 

We get energy (a hormone really) from the sun's energy as well... though it does get converted in our body to a useful product by means of cholestorol.  How is the slug different?  How is it the same?

you cannot prove that a giant flood did not wipe out life on the planet at one point in history... if the experts can't do it, I don't expect you to.  I have not seen evidence for intergenus breeding even still.  You have shown me reasoning to why you believe it is possible, but just like your claim about zero evidence, we still have no evidence that such an occurance happens intergenusly.  

just to be clear... actual evidence would convince me.  A connection is not evidence to me, rather it's a reasoning to believe in an angle.

well first of all, there is no evidence against it because there is no evidence for it other than the story itself... how can one have evidence against something that has no evidence?

  

Second, what could convince me my belief in God is wrong?  I'm assuming you mean the general belief that God exists at all right?  that would simply be an explantion as to how prophesy came to be even hundreds, possibly thousands of years after it was stated.  or maybe that the prophesy stated never happened (an alternative timeline if you will) or that the very prophesy stated was stated after the occurance which then would nullify it as a prophesy.

 

Reveil the origin of the judeo-Christian following.

 

and occurances that affected my life directly were actually intentionally implemented by some one or a group of people that just happened to be so aware of my circumstances that they put into play an event that made a positive turn on that circumstance.

 

The first 2 parts maybe you could do... the 3rd part would have to be people around me fessing up.  

I'd also be curious as to what is happening phsiologically and psychologically when the claimed "Spirit" moves through or within someone and why that is instantaniously transfered to the lot within the same room without warning.  Such a known phenomenon must have a rational explanation if not God.

Beyond Saving wrote:

All that link does is list severe weather, none of which was even in the ballpark of Noah's flood. If we know all those floods happened, how does that suggest we wouldn't know if Noah's flood happened? Seems to me that since we know about all these small floods is evidence we should know about a much larger flood.

why would we? the flood was unlike any other?  The link shows weather that was unlike what we've seen in today's age... there's even a flood that killed 10,000 people... how many people do you think existed during the time of Noah?

Beyond Saving wrote:

None of which is even in the ballpark of the 72inches a day you said would be needed for 40 days. The rainiest place on Earth is in India, and you are talking about sustained rains that are exponentially more than even their extreme. You are talking about 2.8 times more rain in 40 days than they had in their most extreme year ever observed.

um... not none... but let's go to Inda for a moment.. how far back do their weather records go?

actually meteorologists would tell you that we really don't know the limits of nature and have yet to see her full wrath.  which is why Ted Fugita has put a level 6 on his scale even though we've never seen a tornado above an EF5.  That may have been his older model of just F5.  His new model might not have the 6, but the point remains that He knows that there really is no limit to weather.  e.g. the ice age is said to have started rapidly... how could a wooly Mammoth freeze while eating grass?  but it happened according to the evidence found.

 

are you seriously incapable of understanding this?

Do you agree that the following must be true about the flood?  1. Humans were on it2. Pairs of all animals necessary to repopulate the Earth in a way that it has ended up as it is today in its present state had to exist on the boat3. All other life on Earth was wiped out.  If you agree with those 3 things, then that's all I need for my line of questioning. 

 I don't believe that demonstrations of god's power and presence have ever happened on any scale.Speciation can be (and has been) demonstrated in a lab. Also, the information we have of closely related animals of different species suggests that it happens in nature regularily as well. 

 This is what I was referring to specifically. There is no "common ancestor theory". Common ancestry of all life on earth is part of the theory of evolution, whether you like it or not. Also, you are then using the word cult, which is also ridiculous. Cults don't deal in evidence. Biologists do. 

 What is inaccurate about that Futurama clip I posted a while back? We see a very gradual from something more primitively ape to human. Do you want me to find you links between homo habilis and homo erectus? Between Homo Habilis and the Australopithecines? Because when you examine all of the fossils leading to homo sapiens you indeed find this gradual progression. What do you think qualifies as a "missing link" in what biologists contend was the route evolution took to produce us? 

 Explanation, not baseless assertion. 

Urgh....you seriously fail to understand this? Or are you pretending to be immensely stupid on purpose? http://romanoffelements.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/color-theory-red-yellow1.pngExamine the picture in the above link. You will find it to be a colour spectrum between red, and yellow. Imagine that we humans are yellow. We then find the "red fossil". So we would expect to find transitional fossils in between. By exactly orange in my example above, I was referring to the spot in the EXACT centre of this spectrum. Instead, we find one that's ~1mm to the right or left. Hence our prediction is very, VERY close. We also find fossils in dozens of other spots along this spectrum. You are saying because we don't have every single pixel, we're making assumptions. Further, once we find the pixel, you will then provide a spectrum at a better resolution, with more inbetween pixels. I have a feeling you might repeat that until the pixels represent every single generation, then deny it when we're missing one single pixel. I ask again (don't have to answer a second time) what do you actually consider a missing link between us, and what biologists say are our ancestors?

The flood? The experts can't date it because they haven't found evidence that it happened to begin with. Fossils? Yes, the experts CAN date it. Can, and have. We know1. How long it takes for such layers of sediment to form2. How to measure using radiometric dating3. How much genes can change over one generation, over 2 generations, etc. When these 3 are compared, they fall within the same range. What more evidence do you demand?

 Ok. so if you believe that Homo Erectus is human (at least some form of it. Examples range from 1.9 million years ago to 143 000 years ago). 1.9 million years gives you more time than the YEC's have. So does 143 000 I suppose, but not nearly as much. We have catalogued about 1.5 million species. The hypothesis is that there are many more, and estimates range from 2 million and up, to 50 million and up. That said, even the 1.5 million, if you take 2000 animals (1000 species) onto the Ark (unlikely for a boat 2/5 the size of the Titanic), it means that in the intervening 1.9 million years, there would have to be almost one new species emerging every single day. Of course, the ones catalogued are typically bigger, as it's hard to catalogue insects and such (and they speciate much faster as well). The bigger animals also have longer lifespans, and therefore evolve slower. This has huge implications on your position. For example, there are 5 extant species of rhinoceros. That would require 10 rhinos on this thing. 2 species of elephants. 4 elephants on it. 2 lions, 2 tigers, a number of panthers (including cougars, leopards, white panthers, black panthers....) would have to have been on this boat, as there would have not been enough time for them to evolve. You say that that's a reasonable belief?

You want to be that exact? Fine, I'll play that game. "a particular set of beliefs AND practices". Not OR practices, but AND. There is no set of practices that follow when one accepts overwhelming scientific consensus concerning the cause for the diversity of life on earth. 

The line of questioning went like so. You said that car manufacturers often re-use parts over multiple models. I mentioned that

1. There is an earthly reason to do so. Namely, it costs less money to build a car if you only have to engineer one or 2 types of door handles, and 4 engines for the 20 models you sell.

2. Car manufacturers only do so when it makes sense. You don't have a clutch pedal in your car if it's an automatic transmission.

I then asserted that a god would not have such a problem were he omnipotent, as you claim your god is. Your answer was 

caposkia wrote:

I'm suggesting that He created using simpler terms than people assume He would use.  His original intention was to create humans... He created animals as humans companion, but likely used the same blueprint so as to apply commonality somehow.  It is not out of the question to see that pattern in science.

That addressed neither of my points. That is why I called your answer evasive. Because it fucking was. 

It isn't anything that hasn't been said by every single atheist I know. It is the theists who keep insisting that everything has to have an explanation and if one isn't known then it must have been god. The thing is, that most theists are about 100 years behind in science, so the vast majority of the time they so "oh yeah, well how do you explain ______" it is something that already has been explained, so us atheists rarely have to say we don't know because most of the stuff theists rail about, we actually do have a really good idea and usually theists go to the same sites to get their (mis)information. The bible is perfectly consistent with science as it was understood 2000 years ago. It isn't consistent at all with what we have discovered since. 

And no, I haven't dismissed creation all together. I have dismissed the idea of a mega intelligent being single handedly creating everything. Whether matter was created or always existed is a completely different question. The idea of creation doesn't require an intelligent all powerful being.  

Yes you do. You believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god. You have no choice but to subscribe to predestination. The only way out for you is to remove omniscience from your gods definition. I'm certainly understanding you better now. No wonder you are so bereft of logic. The very foundation of your faith is self contradictory. It's like you're trying to say that green is red, even though even you see green. Remarkable.

that might be true if everyone got to choose faith. Sadly, most have no choice. They are brainwashed from birth. Oops, no free will again.

caposkia wrote:

Oh I have to hear this one.  Please PLEASE explain how the act of creation results in predestination throughout all time for all creation.  I would love to understand how I here shot down my own argument.  There may be hope for you yet.

See what I mean? You keep switching subjects instead of answering arguments. You might be responding, but this is clearly a one-sided discussion.

You've been presented with evidence that refutes your god, yet you keep believing. I can change. I'll always be in the game, even if I'm occasionally or even always on the wrong side. You just aren't.

y heart has been open for about 26 years now, and I'm still waiting. Since you are incapable of furnishing evidence, telling you what would qualify would be pointless. If you could provide evidence you'd have done so.

An effect. If there is anything that is not physical, yet can in any way interact with the physical, there would be evidence. If it cannot interact with the physical, then it is irrelevant whether or not it exists, because it has nothing to do with us and we nothing to do with it.  \

Lots of people think Nostradamus was a successful prophet too. But in reality, prophecy is ridiculous. The christian church has been saying christ will return for a good 1800+ years. Funny how he hasn't shown up. Even more funny is how the christians are not the first to make the claim their hero will return in a time of need. It makes for a good fairy tale, but it's never happened and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

Lol. It's like talking to a child. No, everything I know about my past is not automatically false if I don't have pics. It is merely not necessarily true. The brain, when not operating consciously under delusions of faith, is a remarkably logical organ. When some memory is being reconstructed, so is a timeline that can actually work. Many reconstructed memories are not particularly different from the original. At least, not when comparing them to subsequent recollections. But it's also like the game kids play, where one whispers something into the ear of another, and on it goes around the circle. Sometimes the first kid hears exactly what they said when it makes it around. But more often it is slightly different. On occasion it is extremely different.

caposkia wrote:

that all ancient history is biased and likely false.

It largely is, though it would be far more accurate to first acknowledge that there is more history missing than has ever been written. History is written by the powerful and the victorious. Most people are not powerful. The opportunity to rewrite history is not afforded to many individuals. When someone writes something, it says nothing. When two people a world apart write the same thing, it means more. When 20 people write the same thing, and artifacts/locations match up with the writing, it becomes fairly credible. But I've watched history be re-written in my lifetime. Most people don't care, so it goes off without a hitch. We have telephones and a internet today, to make it harder than burning a library and building a new one. And yet it still happens. Only a complete fool would believe it hasn't happened many times before, especially when it used to be one of the simplest things a ruler could do. Where you fall into the rabbit hole is when you assume artifacts are as maleable as you suggest. If a coin with Ceasars face on it is dug up and dated to the time he ruled Rome, and that coin has writings from dozens of author's that correlate with the timing, and a dozen more coins are dug up that also correspond, it becomes perfectly logical to assume Rome existed and Ceasar ruled it for a time. It is far more likely a proposition than the most obvious alternative: that hundreds or thousands of people conspired and invested considerable resources into perpetuating a fiction. Your religion only needed one guy named Joseph telling a few stories. There are no coins, no other writers. There is no evidence at all. No incredibly costly conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of people is necessary. It is far more likely that Joseph made shit up then it is the son of god wandered around for a couple decades performing miracles, and not one person thought it interesting enough to write about. In this particular historical example, the conspiracy would have to be to cover it up. But if so, then it would have succeeded or failed. It couldn't have done both. Which is exactly what it would have to do in order to be true.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not a single one of my links involved any genetic manipulation at all. THEY WERE ALL NATURALLY OCCURRING HYBRIDS. Not forced in some lab somewhere. The ones I listed aren't even forced by putting the two animals in a cage. If you include those, you have other intergeneric hybrids like Ligers and Zonkeys which would never occur in the wild because the animals don't live in the same part of the world. If that isn't enough, here is another recently discovered intergeneric hybrid http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1670/10-260 intergeneric hybrids are quite plentiful. 

I've never claimed donkeys didn't exist... we know hybrids happen... but to the extent as to a chain reaction... meaning a hybrid creates a hybrid with another hybrid... in order for the darwinistic progression of evolution to happen, such occurances would have to be common place.  

I think where we're going to differ is not only the source of life, but where hybrids formed and into what... e.g. apes to humans.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Easily. The lack of evidence where evidence would be expected IS evidence. 99.9% of science is discovering what doesn't work. You come up with a hypothesis and then predict the results of an experiment, then you conduct the experiment to see if you are right. If the results match your prediction it is positive evidence for your hypothesis, if the results do not match the prediction, then you have evidence that your hypothesis is wrong and needs to be modified or thrown out. When you are unable to find evidence where evidence would be expected to be found is evidence against something. 

I'm not sure if i agree with you about the percentage of science being discovering what doesn't work.. rather it's discovering what is by means of a process.  the experimentation is discovering that process.

The lack of evidence where evidence would be... where woudl this flood evidence be exactly?  How do you know for sure?  

The reason why even experts can't discredit or confirm the story is because not even they can find where the evidence should be... they're not exactly sure where to begin.  There's not even enough information as to location to start looking.  

 

really... it's that easy for you huh?   You do realize I'm not going to buy a disbelieving perspective on the prophesy, but rather I'm going to be looking for what occured instead of the prophetic fulfillment.  If you've got that information, then great, let's start off the biggest aspect of OT prophesy, Jesus Christ.  Keep in mind there are a vast number of prophetic verses in the OT... this might take another thread if you've really got somethign on it.

That's Christianity... Judeo-Christian... basically where the idea of this God started... not just Jesus Christ which of course started off small... according to scripture, ti was just 13 to start.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would it have to be intentional? 99.99% of how other people influence you and how you influence other people is completely unintentional.

because if it all was unintentional, then too much happened to not have an intentional influence from a higher power.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/20/seances-and-science There is a significant amount of research on the subject ranging from seances to group hypnotizing. It is certainly an interesting aspect of psychology, but is well understood. Psychology isn't a strong suit of mine, but you could do a search at jstor.com and find dozens of articles explaining the science behind the effects. 

That has to do with something completely different than "the Spirit" moving in someone or a group of people... picture heads bowed, maybe music playing in the background, but many times just completely silent.. no one is looking at anything, touching anything or anyone, but it still moves through the sanctuary and connects to everyone there.  The link explains phenomena when people are either making an effort to do something or have physical or visual cues to give a result... e.g hands on a table for 40 minutes triggers involuntary muscle movement and subconscious thought causing multiple hands on a ougia board to move the glass over proper letters.  Even when I was young and did that I could see who was moving it.  

I think the question comes down to how can someone who is not connected to anyone, not looking at anything or anyone, not necessarily hearing anything have the spirit move in them... ironically to find out that it happened in most people within the same room.  It happened to me... and when hypnotists do the audience thing to see who could be a good volunteer, it never works for me, even when i want it to.  

I don't believe your link answers the question.

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do you agree that the following must be true about the flood?  1. Humans were on it2. Pairs of all animals necessary to repopulate the Earth in a way that it has ended up as it is today in its present state had to exist on the boat3. All other life on Earth was wiped out.  If you agree with those 3 things, then that's all I need for my line of questioning. 

1.  humans were on it... I'm assuming you mean the boat... yes...2.  and 3  yesconsidering this, evolution could have taken the necessary steps to populate the earth as is flood or no flood... we still only have a "guestimate" as to when it likely took place and thus can only reference based on that. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 I don't believe that demonstrations of god's power and presence have ever happened on any scale.Speciation can be (and has been) demonstrated in a lab. Also, the information we have of closely related animals of different species suggests that it happens in nature regularily as well. 

pecticides have been demonstrated in a lab too... does that mean they happen naturally?  I didn't think you'd buy it as written... neither would I. 

jabberwocky wrote:

 This is what I was referring to specifically. There is no "common ancestor theory". Common ancestry of all life on earth is part of the theory of evolution, whether you like it or not. Also, you are then using the word cult, which is also ridiculous. Cults don't deal in evidence. Biologists do. 

jabberwocky wrote:

 What is inaccurate about that Futurama clip I posted a while back? We see a very gradual from something more primitively ape to human. Do you want me to find you links between homo habilis and homo erectus? Between Homo Habilis and the Australopithecines? Because when you examine all of the fossils leading to homo sapiens you indeed find this gradual progression. What do you think qualifies as a "missing link" in what biologists contend was the route evolution took to produce us? 

where certain key features fazed out like the protruding brow or upright walk... e.g. there would have to be fossils that showed the protruding brow slowly diminish and also fossils of beings that would sometimes walk upright, but not always, starting with a minimal progression to the majority of the time.   

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Explanation, not baseless assertion. 

like God?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Urgh....you seriously fail to understand this? Or are you pretending to be immensely stupid on purpose? http://romanoffelements.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/color-theory-red-yellow1.pngExamine the picture in the above link. You will find it to be a colour spectrum between red, and yellow. Imagine that we humans are yellow. We then find the "red fossil". So we would expect to find transitional fossils in between. By exactly orange in my example above, I was referring to the spot in the EXACT centre of this spectrum. Instead, we find one that's ~1mm to the right or left. Hence our prediction is very, VERY close. We also find fossils in dozens of other spots along this spectrum. You are saying because we don't have every single pixel, we're making assumptions. Further, once we find the pixel, you will then provide a spectrum at a better resolution, with more inbetween pixels. I have a feeling you might repeat that until the pixels represent every single generation, then deny it when we're missing one single pixel. I ask again (don't have to answer a second time) what do you actually consider a missing link between us, and what biologists say are our ancestors?

What I'm saying is it's ironic that the center "milimeter" as you put it always seems to be missing in transitional species.  Biologists claim because one side is so close to the other that they must have evolved from the first, but that middle part is always missing... one time?  ok... 2 times?  alright, 3, 4, 5... always a gap then I wonder if there's another explanation.  You can call it a millimeter, a nanometer, but when it comes down to it, as you said, it's not exactly orange... either it orange or it's not.  no maybes.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

The flood? The experts can't date it because they haven't found evidence that it happened to begin with. Fossils? Yes, the experts CAN date it. Can, and have. We know1. How long it takes for such layers of sediment to form2. How to measure using radiometric dating3. How much genes can change over one generation, over 2 generations, etc. When these 3 are compared, they fall within the same range. What more evidence do you demand?

same the experts do to date the flood really... evidence of a timeframe for the flood.  not round about, but specific flood evidence.  

 

jabberwocky wrote:

 Ok. so if you believe that Homo Erectus is human (at least some form of it. Examples range from 1.9 million years ago to 143 000 years ago). 1.9 million years gives you more time than the YEC's have. So does 143 000 I suppose, but not nearly as much. We have catalogued about 1.5 million species. The hypothesis is that there are many more, and estimates range from 2 million and up, to 50 million and up. That said, even the 1.5 million, if you take 2000 animals (1000 species) onto the Ark (unlikely for a boat 2/5 the size of the Titanic), it means that in the intervening 1.9 million years, there would have to be almost one new species emerging every single day. Of course, the ones catalogued are typically bigger, as it's hard to catalogue insects and such (and they speciate much faster as well). The bigger animals also have longer lifespans, and therefore evolve slower. This has huge implications on your position. For example, there are 5 extant species of rhinoceros. That would require 10 rhinos on this thing. 2 species of elephants. 4 elephants on it. 2 lions, 2 tigers, a number of panthers (including cougars, leopards, white panthers, black panthers....) would have to have been on this boat, as there would have not been enough time for them to evolve. You say that that's a reasonable belief?

that would be if this species was definitely human and the fossils we found were in fact the earliest of that species.  Even so, it has been theorized that just in the rainforests alone, new species (plural) are formed everyday.  so it's really not that far fetched to assume that there were booms of speciation at periods within the last 2 million years.   

jabberwocky wrote:

You want to be that exact? Fine, I'll play that game. "a particular set of beliefs AND practices". Not OR practices, but AND. There is no set of practices that follow when one accepts overwhelming scientific consensus concerning the cause for the diversity of life on earth. 

ok, game on  If you claim there are no set of practices, what would you call the scientific method?  

jabberwocky wrote:

The line of questioning went like so. You said that car manufacturers often re-use parts over multiple models. I mentioned that

1. There is an earthly reason to do so. Namely, it costs less money to build a car if you only have to engineer one or 2 types of door handles, and 4 engines for the 20 models you sell.

2. Car manufacturers only do so when it makes sense. You don't have a clutch pedal in your car if it's an automatic transmission.

I then asserted that a god would not have such a problem were he omnipotent, as you claim your god is. Your answer was 

caposkia wrote:

I'm suggesting that He created using simpler terms than people assume He would use.  His original intention was to create humans... He created animals as humans companion, but likely used the same blueprint so as to apply commonality somehow.  It is not out of the question to see that pattern in science.

That addressed neither of my points. That is why I called your answer evasive. Because it fucking was. 

of course God wouldn't have a "problem"  but why would God being the omnipotent being that He is also not try the most reasonable and simple way of doing things if it worked the way it should?  

I've evaded nothing that you can point out... unless you'd like to point it out so as to make me forced to reanswer....  which then it makes it harder for me to evade because it becomes more obvious... hint hint.

Jabberwocky, you had a broken quote that screwed up the formatting. Hope you don't mind, I fixed it for ya.

The theory of evolution does not in any way require hybrids to breed with hybrids, although that does happen and is quite common among closely related hybrids such as dogs. Most genetic mutations occur intraspecies, and with humans, it is believed that the only hybridization that occured within the last few million years was through interbreeding with Neanderthals. Regardless, I have shown proof that both hybridization occurs- even among genetically distant species as well as intraspecies mutations (the skinks, mice and grasshoppers from my earlier links). Such mutations are common and occur at predictable rates. As I pointed out in the previous post, you are more genetically different from humans at the time of Jesus than early homo sapiens were from Neanderthals, because in modern times genetic mutations have been occurring at really fast rates due to more humans breeding outside of their immediate community. On average, a human has roughly 100 "errors" in their genes, that is 100 genes that didn't copy correctly from your parents and are uniquely yours. Many of these mutations are not particularly noticeable or don't make a significant difference. Others are. Some will become dominant in the population, others will disappear.    

Absolutely no one believes that humans came from apes. Apes are our distant cousins, not our ancestors. 

Well I pulled the number out of my ass, but the point stands that most of science is discovering what you are wrong about. You make a hypothesis, you test it and more often than not you find out you were wrong. Or you have a successful test, publish the results and 20 other assholes out there shred your methodology to pieces and create better tests which show you were wrong, then publish their results. For every discovery that can be backed up with solid evidence, there were dozens of hypothesis which were proved wrong one at a time. 

The same place as all the evidence for the thousands of floods that we have found except presumably on a much larger scale since this flood was supposedly hundreds if not thousands of times larger than anything we have evidence of. We aren't talking about a minor event where the evidence would be difficult to find, you are proposing an event that makes nuclear bombs look like a fart in the wind. The evidence would literally be mountains, big mountains, and gigantic ravines. Bigger than the rockies and the grand canyon. I think we can safely say that if there was anything that big, we would have found it by now. 

Like taking candy from a baby. So your evidence of prophecy is one that was fulfilled by the very same book it was written in? That is a nice circle. You believe the book because the prophecy came true, and your evidence that the prophecy came true is that the book said it did. Surely you can see the problem with that since your evidence that the book is true lies within the book itself? How about a prophecy that we can actually corroborate with evidence external to the book that made the prophecy?  

The Jews have an equally traceable history, which has also been extremely well documented. They probably have the most studied history of any people in the world, which is unfortunate because there are so many cultures that were far more interesting.

What else was going to happen? Something had to happen, people had to make some decision and no matter what decision they made, that decision would be beneficial for someone. It is rather egotistical to presume that you were at all relevant to anyone making those decisions. When decisions don't go your way, as they often do, do you believe that some higher power is out there intentionally making things difficult for you?

There is tons of research on the subject of mass psychology. I just pointed out one non-religious example. The circumstances differ, but the psychology behind it remains the same and there is a significant amount of research on the topic. I did some research on "cold reading" and similar mass psychology techniques when I was a teenager, but it isn't a topic that really interests me anymore so I don't have a plethora of links on it. A simple google search will turn up a significant amount of material explaining the phenomenon. 

*sigh*. Seriously? Just because it's a lab doesn't mean that it's all about chemicals. Pesticides are chemicals synthesized in laboratories. Are you having trouble accepting speciation now? I thought you accepted that speciation occurs. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

 Ok. Seriously, the diminished protrusion of the brow needs no special explanation. To call that a problem for biologists is to call it a problem that some breeds of dog have a protruding snout, while others are quite flat-faced. EVEN young earth creationists accept that all dogs had a common ancestor. This is a very minor morphological difference all things considered. Unless you don't believe that dogs all have a common ancestor, which would be very bizarre indeed.As far as an upright walk, we do have such fossils. We also have other primates alive who do exactly that. They can walk upright, but their pelves cause them to not be able to stand on one leg. They lean towards the direction of their raised leg. This is why you see when a chimpanzee walks with a human holding their hand, they sway right and left as they walk. They have the ability to walk upright. It's simply more efficient for them not to. There are some pelvis fossils (such as Turkana boy, a specimen of Homo Ergaster) that show ancestors that had a pelvis even better geared than ours towards upright walking. You do see a progression though. The pelvis of Australopithecus Africanus is better suited to bipedalism than that of Au. Afarensis. When you look at the pelvis bones of humans, older hominids, australopithecines, and then modern apes such as chimpanzees, you will see that much like with the brow protrusion, all it really takes is a changing of proportions.  Can you name me two specimens between which you find an unbridgeable gap?

 Like magic. It's saying the same thing unless you can provide some further explanation.

The problem is that they don't say that "we must find this exact shade of orange that is 255-165-0 in RGB terms. They see that, and say "we will find something like that!". Meanwhile they found 255-175-0 instead. http://www.colorcodehex.com/ffa500/http://www.colorcodehex.com/ffaf00/Now open those 2 links in separate tabs, and alternate back and forth. You will see that the former is slightly darker. If you were to ask to the minute detail what an unknown transitional form between our "red" and "yellow" is, they would probably give you the first one, although the answer would probably vary slightly depending on who you're asking, because they might have slightly different ideas of how certain traits evolved. So what you're saying is "we found 255-175-0, but not 255-165-0. Therefore, biologists are wrong!" At least that's what it seems to me. You're saying that that one spot on the spectrrum always seems to be missing in transitional species. As I asked above (you only have to answer me once though) provide me with an example of one of these actual problematic gaps the deriders of biology constantly talk about. 

Species of what? Insects perhaps as they reproduce quickly and, therefore, they speciate quickly. That is why there are estimated to be 950 000 insect species, and only about 3119 mammalian species. I can see other animals having new species discovered daily, but not emerging daily, as they don't speciate fast enough. The rate of speciation that you are proposing for mammals with long lives would require genetic change far more rapid than we've ever seen, if we were to put a small enough number of animals on that Ark that they may at least fit. There are 1400 different species of rodent. How many would you need in your opinion to have all 1400 around today? Also, how do you keep a wooden boat in good shape with even 50 rodents on it? Can you put together some sort of tree (or a Ken Ham style "orchard&quot of evolution that doesn't involve speciation occuring at a ridiculously higher rate than ever observed that still allows for all of the animals necessary to fit onto one boat 1/3 the size of the titanic? 

Are you seriously unable to make a distinction between the scientific method and typical religious practices, such as praying, attending church, speaking in tongues, etc.?

Does it work the way it should? Imagine for a moment that you're eating dinner. Someone makes you laugh, and you accidentally swallow the food in your mouth before chewing it properly. You then say "Oh dear. I've got some food lodged in my food hole. I need to get that dislodged before I can continue eating" You then calmly go to the restroom with someone who performs the hiemlich maneouver, and you can then sit back down and eat. In real life, it doesn't happen that way. Our food chute is also our breathing tube. This is a major design flaw. It would be more complicated to have 2 tubes, but it would be more reasonable. Which takes precedent when simple isn't reasonable? 

You did evade my question, as I just said. I hope my clarification here is helpful in getting through to you what it is that I meant. 

 

I understand your reasoning, but it's literally just that, reasoning.. not evidence of the transitions in question, only that errors happen, hybrids happen and genes look similar in particular situations.   It's like you're showing me that Juneau is part of Alaska, but then leaving me to believe I can get there by driving.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Absolutely no one believes that humans came from apes. Apes are our distant cousins, not our ancestors. 

well, I wouldn't say absolutely no one... I didn't come up with that statement on my own.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The same place as all the evidence for the thousands of floods that we have found except presumably on a much larger scale since this flood was supposedly hundreds if not thousands of times larger than anything we have evidence of. We aren't talking about a minor event where the evidence would be difficult to find, you are proposing an event that makes nuclear bombs look like a fart in the wind. The evidence would literally be mountains, big mountains, and gigantic ravines. Bigger than the rockies and the grand canyon. I think we can safely say that if there was anything that big, we would have found it by now. 

considering the distance in history and also the magnitude possibilities, are you sure it woudl have had to been found by now?  

well no, the Bible is actually 66 Canoical books and those books are hudreds or thousands of manuscripts compiled and translated... so actually one book likely made a prophesy and another confirmed... that is usually the case... a great example is the exhaustive list of prophesy of Jesus in the OT.  

Beyond SAving wrote:

The Jews have an equally traceable history, which has also been extremely well documented. They probably have the most studied history of any people in the world, which is unfortunate because there are so many cultures that were far more interesting.

Great.  where'd they start and from whom or what?

There is an understanding that there's a spiritual battle constantly happening, but what you question is purely circumstantial.  it could be some higher power, or it could legiitmately be a bad choice by me or others that affected me.  

What else was giong to happen you ask?  typically nothing really... the fact that something happened is what is significant.  

yea, I've looked into it myself... nothing really answers what I'm talking about that I've seen so far.  Like you, I've always looked for the rational realistic answer for why things happen... even after becoming a Christian, ti took me a very long time to accept the fact that people can have a filling of the Holy Spirit... I always thought it was just hokum.  

to suggest that omniscience includes knowing the future is to suggest that the future exists presently..

As you said omniscience is knowledge of everything... that is every THING.  In other words if it doesn't exist, there is no knowledge of it..

so the question is, do you believe the future exists or is it yet to be written?

So in other words, you can't explain predestinationalism.

nor should you, but that hasn't stopped you has it

o basically what I hear you suggesting is that in order to be omniscient, not only must you know the unknowable, but you must be able to violate the law of non-contradiction by knowing things beyond possibility.

How are you not a theist extremist with this perspective?  Your understanding of God takes a lot more faith than most.

 I agree with the definition that omniscience is the capacity to know all that there is to know... I'm under the belief that the future is not to know yet until it happens.

but that doesn't predestine the outcomes or determine the specific steps to that point.

God can manipulate situations to adhere to his ideal future which is logical within his own creation, but to know what doesn't exist yet is violating the law of non-contradiction and thus is not rational or logical.  Who's the theist here?

so how many convicted criminals were actually brainwashed into doing what they did and then likely are innocent?   I would assume if someone was brainwashed into killing someone else, they couldn't possibly be held accountable for the murder.  They didn't know any better.

So what then is your take on time in creation?

well, basically what you're saying is you can't be complaining right now.  becasue right now you're just asking me for flowers.. you don't know what you're looking for.

yet that's the biggest mistake most people "seeking" God do, sit back and wait for something to happen... That's not how God works.  You think it'd be pointless, but what you've been doing using your analogy above is taking your car to a mechanic, but then telling them how they should fix it despite how backwards it might be. 

so then you're brainwashed

how about an example.  Basically I'm trying to see if it's rational... the problem with "any effect" is I'm willing to be that effect has already happened and you've missed it.

In other words, if you did experience something that has no explanation, you'd still ratinoalize an explanation in your head and conclude that there is an explanation.

there's the second mistake most non-believers make when "seeking" God... they have the mindset that God "needs" to convince us of his existence...

but we're not talking about the YEC view of humanity are we... let's try and stick to reality. 

well, start with the churches, continue on with defiant youth and lovers of self and go from there.

I have sound reason to believe that the scriptures have not been changed from their original sources because in the thousands of years worth of translations that we have in our possesssion of the scriptures, they are all roughly identical.

a predictable response of course.

 If anything, that should be reasoning to believe what is written within despite inconsistencies.... and I have yet to find the contradictions that people claim... every one pointed out has been refuted by me so far... unless you have something new.

IT has been written by man, but by what you say, we should believe nothing written historically regardless of the proofs that come with it unless the proofs can be replicated presently.

The problem with your statements is you have to realize they would have to apply to every lateral concept and not just scripture.  This leaves belief in nothing, no one and not even any occurance outside your experiential world.  "no one is real, but they're willing to let you down..." - Powerman 5000

1. Quantum effects, which mean that the outcome of any interaction can only be known within a finite level of probability, within which pure randomness prevails.  For example, we can calculate with great preciison the probability that a given radio-active atom will decay in the next second, but the exact moment of decay is the most purely random event we know of.

2. Chaos effects, which arise in situations of non-linear feedback, where the effect of any interaction can be, in principle, amplified by an infinite amount, which means in practice that the outcome can be changed completely by an arbitrarily small change in the initial conditions. These effects are what puts definite limits on how far ahead we can predict the course of weather events, no matter how detailed our knowledge of the current state of the atmosphere.

BobSpence wrote:

1. Quantum effects, which mean that the outcome of any interaction can only be known within a finite level of probability, within which pure randomness prevails.  For example, we can calculate with great precison the probability that a given radio-active atom will decay in the next second, but the exact moment of decay is the most purely random event we know of.

That presupposes that quantum effects cannot be predicted at all. Just because we can't predict them doesn't mean they can't be predicted. There is no basis to make claims like this. There could very well be information that would allow one to predict quantum effects with perfection. I'll admit I presuppose that they can be predicted with my argument regarding omniscience, but since knowing everything would give you absolute knowledge on quantum events, it is certainly plausible that said absolute knowledge would allow one to predict them.

BobSpence wrote:

2. Chaos effects, which arise in situations of non-linear feedback, where the effect of any interaction can be, in principle, amplified by an infinite amount, which means in practice that the outcome can be changed completely by an arbitrarily small change in the initial conditions. These effects are what puts definite limits on how far ahead we can predict the course of weather events, no matter how detailed our knowledge of the current state of the atmosphere.

Again you presuppose that sufficient knowledge would not allow one to predict accurately without evidence. If the entire Earth system were known absolutely, then the weather in that system would be predictable. Chaos effects are named so because we can't know everything, thus can't predict everything. Hell, even if we could factor in every single molecule on Earth, we'd still fail to predict the weather because of the suns effects. There is no confirmed discovery in science that absolutely precludes any possibility of predicting the future accurately. Merely circumstantial evidence that may be overturned one day.

No presupposition involved. There is no prior event to trigger the decay at a particular instant, just the quantum energy states of the particles involved which determine the probability of decay in a given time interval. This is why I selected this example, our current understanding of this does not require any further causal process to trigger the decay event. All observations confirm it as a purely random event with a very specific rate of decay which allows things like radio-carbon dating to work so well.

This example involves "Chaos Theory", which, to quote from the Wikipedia article,
"studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a paradigm popularly referred to as the butterfly effect"
I think you need to study both areas (particle decay and chaos theory) a bit more closely before being so dismissive.