Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Don't you mean:
Do you want to question our Athiestic, morally bankrupt, emotionally based understaning of chemistry and particle physics now?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I've objected to the way the law is selectively applied by many evolutionists.

HOW is it selectively applied again?

0 Replies

Below is an excerpt from "One Universe, Under God" by Liza Lentini in the current issue of Discover Magazine. It describes how creationism is taught today in the United States.

Quote:

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
parados,

I've said that I don't know how old the earth is. I think the jury's still out on that.

I tend to favor thousands rather than billions of years because the dating schemes used to come up with billions of years are notoriously contradictory and based on unproven and usually unprovable assumptions. Wonder why I'm skeptical?

So you ONLY want to talk about how old the earth is, eh? (Can't blame you, based on your poor performance talking about the origin of life.)

from the link I posted:

Quote:

So , we'll take this one step at a time for you.

Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down?

Oh boy, this should be fun. Wake me up when Lord Kelvin's calculations take into account the formation of the moon, a myriad of other impacts, General Relativity instead of Newtonian mechanics and plate tectonics.

Some more interesting thoughts on the slowing of the earth's rotation. (from a non-YEC, so you might even read it )

http://novan.com/earth.htm

Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down, ros?

You mention several things which might influence the speed of the earth's rotation, but you fail to state exactly WHAT effect you think they had.

0 Replies

OMG, the earth is slowing! It must be angels grabbing onto it and flying in the opposite directions!

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down, ros?

I don't know. I haven't looked into it.

Do you think that if the earth is slowing now that it was slowing before?

If it was slowing before, do you think it was slowing at the same rate?

Do you think the earth's rotation ever speeds up for any reason?

Do you think that there are events which change its rotation in various ways and in varying degrees?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down, ros?

I don't know. I haven't looked into it.
Do you think that if the earth is slowing now that it was slowing before?

Yes.

rosborne979 wrote:

If it was slowing before, do you think it was slowing at the same rate?

Not necessarily.

rosborne979 wrote:

Do you think the earth's rotation ever speeds up for any reason?

Unlikely.

rosborne979 wrote:

Do you think that there are events which change its rotation in various ways and in varying degrees?

It's possible.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
I've objected to the way the law is selectively applied by many evolutionists.

HOW is it selectively applied again?

When an evolutionist says 'You see, Real Life, the Earth is an open system[/i] because it receives abundant energy from outside itself. The 2nd Law ONLY applies to closed systems[/i].........'

.........and then cannot name even ONE naturally occurring closed system.

0 Replies

Name one ARTIFICIALLY closed system. There ain't no such thing. A system is open or closed by the definition of its parameters.

0 Replies

Now you're catching on, TCR.

0 Replies

No I actually caught on in sophomore thermodynamics class in college over 25 years ago. But thank's for your concern. As I know you are now going to say you have been saying that all the time. Even though a few weeks back I posted three artificial "closed systems" and you NEVER SAID a word about my choices. Laughing

By the way if you look back at MY posts you'll see I've made this same point numerous times.

P.S. Why has everyone stopped playing with you?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
I've objected to the way the law is selectively applied by many evolutionists.

HOW is it selectively applied again?

When an evolutionist says 'You see, Real Life, the Earth is an open system[/i] because it receives abundant energy from outside itself. The 2nd Law ONLY applies to closed systems[/i].........'

.........and then cannot name even ONE naturally occurring closed system.

And WHO is saying this?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down, ros?

I don't know. I haven't looked into it.
Do you think that if the earth is slowing now that it was slowing before?

Yes.

rosborne979 wrote:
If it was slowing before, do you think it was slowing at the same rate?

Not necessarily.

rosborne979 wrote:
Do you think the earth's rotation ever speeds up for any reason?

Unlikely.

rosborne979 wrote:
Do you think that there are events which change its rotation in various ways and in varying degrees?

It's possible.

Earthquake Affects Earth's Rotation.

Given the obvious variability of the Earth's rotation, do you think that extrapolating the present spin decay back in time, is a reliable method of determining the earth's age?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
I've objected to the way the law is selectively applied by many evolutionists.

HOW is it selectively applied again?

When an evolutionist says 'You see, Real Life, the Earth is an open system[/i] because it receives abundant energy from outside itself. The 2nd Law ONLY applies to closed systems[/i].........'

.........and then cannot name even ONE naturally occurring closed system.

And WHO is saying this?

No doubt. Who is saying this?

T
K
O

0 Replies

So, did we ever get any proof for creationism? That was the whole point of this thread.

If I remember correctly, BadDog was the only one who was even honest enough to float his opinion (basically, that anything beautiful or amazing that moves him emotionally proves the existence of god). Of course, "God" isn't the same thing as Creationism, but that's as close as we've gotten so far. Putting aside for the moment the fact that most of us don't consider emotional intensity as "proof" of anything, at least we had something to work with for a moment there.

Maybe we should reduce the demands of the thread a bit and ask for mere evidence, rather than proof.

Anyone? Is there anything in the physical world which shows evidence for Creationism?

RL likes to tell us the evidence can be interpreted differently to support different conclusions. But when asked repeatedly to give us an example of a piece of evidence which somehow indicates a creation event, he never replies (what a surprise).

0 Replies

Evidence indicates that all humans are recently descended from the same line.

We may argue about the date, but it is certainly MUCH more recent than the standard evolutionary theory will allow, isn't it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Evidence indicates that all humans are recently descended from the same line.

We may argue about the date, but it is certainly MUCH more recent than the standard evolutionary theory will allow, isn't it?

What evidence?

What evidence do you have that supports your statement the timeline for evolution is wrong?

You have never given any credible evidence to support the Biblical creation story.

You have never given any evidence to support the sun standing still for a day.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
Evidence indicates that all humans are recently descended from the same line.

We may argue about the date, but it is certainly MUCH more recent than the standard evolutionary theory will allow, isn't it?

What evidence?

Some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
Evidence indicates that all humans are recently descended from the same line.

We may argue about the date, but it is certainly MUCH more recent than the standard evolutionary theory will allow, isn't it?

What evidence?

Some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

So this tells us the Mitochondrial Eve is at least 140,000 to 200,000 years old.

So?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

So, did we ever get any proof for creationism? That was the whole point of this thread.

I don't believe in creationism. However, one question we could ask, is there anyway that God could influence natural events without violating known scientific laws? In other words, if someone proposes that there is a divine power that is responsible for the appearance of man and other creatures, can that be reconciled with the known laws of nature? An interesting argument might be that mutations could be guided by a divine influence, the Holy Spirit, pure consciousness, call it what you will. Since physics allows for a certain degree of uncertainty due to such things as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and non-linear dynamics with extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, it is conceivable that an "unseen hand" could guide events at a very subtle level (such as "random" mutations) and result in the creation of life forms over times scales that would not appear to be possible otherwise. I'm not saying that I believe this. I'm just saying it is a plausible argument. As I said, I don't believe in creationism, as it disagrees with the known scientific evidence. What do you think?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know