Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 09:23 am
wandeljw wrote:
The news on public television showed a "creationist" museum with statues of cavemen interacting with dinosaurs. One of the dinosaurs had a saddle! This museum was started by someone who wanted to illustrate a literal interpretation of Genesis in a "scientific" way.

Needless to say, humans and dinosaurs missed each other by 70 million years, which even the most rudimentary research would reveal.
0 Replies
 
Rex the Wonder Squirrel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 10:46 am
Needless to say, the Earth isn't millions of years old, which even the most rudimentary research and understanding of the flaws in carbon dating will reveal.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 11:32 am
Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:
Needless to say, the Earth isn't millions of years old, which even the most rudimentary research and understanding of the flaws in carbon dating will reveal.


What does carbondating have to do with geological dating?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 11:54 am
Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:
Needless to say, the Earth isn't millions of years old, which even the most rudimentary research and understanding of the flaws in carbon dating will reveal.

Please support that claim with a fact or two. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Rex the Wonder Squirrel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 01:05 pm
A fact or two? Well, okay, since you asked nicely.

Let's talk about the rocks. The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for a vast age. The "deep time" indoctrination comes with the statement "often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time." However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates ("the present is the key to the past" idea) is often called uniformitarianism.

More recently, however, the word "uniformitarianism" has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called "methodological uniformitarianism", as opposed to what some have called "substantive uniformitarianism."

It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general "slow and gradual" principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neocatastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.

However, a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming Wink ) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized.

Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon! And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field. Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.

In one of Berthault's experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together. The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault's first experiments.

So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God's Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been.

Conversely, how does the "slow and gradual" explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet there are jellyfish fossils. They clearly couldn't have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly.

The booklet Stones and Bones shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7-foot long ichthyosaur (an extinct fish-shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away.

Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been "catastrophic floods" on Mars that carved out canyons although no liquid water is present today. But evolutionists deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth's surface! If it weren't for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn't have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of evolutionists affect their interpretation of the evidence.

You want some more facts? Here are some more facts. Obviously this is hardly all of them-- indeed, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists-- but here are a few.

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last for more than a few thousand years-- certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.

The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn't be more than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.

Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. The helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn't have had time to escape-- certainly not billions of years.

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star-- the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.

The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1.5 inches per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present state. This is a maximum possible age of the moon-- not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric "dates" assigned to moon rocks).

Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old-- far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the Evidence for a Young World by Dr. Russell Humphreys. Indeed, there are many, many more.


Now, do you really want to get into radiometric dating too?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 01:08 pm
I'm at work, but give me a day or two to read and think about what you said. Is your strategy to make a valid point or just to obscure the facts with volume? No, matter. I'll read it and get back to you. I am sure that was right off the top of your head, so I can see why no attribution was necessary.
0 Replies
 
Rex the Wonder Squirrel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 01:10 pm
Hey, ask and you shall receive, dude. Take all the time you need.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 06:41 pm
Here is another long post for you all to read.

You're all wrong... hehe Smile

El-Diablo wrote:
Quote:
It is equally as futile to refute evolution as it is to refute creation... How can we decide one or the other when they appear to have both played a part in our humble beginning... If the big bang was an explosion of immense proportions then what created this imperceptible energy supply in the first place? Though a Christen is truly foolish to deny evolution the scientist is also foolish to refute creation...


I rarely if ever try to refute Creationism as it is impossible. I do my best however to try and to some extent "prove" evolution to those who do not agree with it.


Refute creationism? Impossible because it does not exist or impossible be cause you are not able to do so? You seem too sure of evolution. Most scientists I have had the pleasure of knowing have made loose assumptions out of ethical caution and scientific correctness... They believe in evolution but they are hesitant about making blanket statements...

If God can create one hydrogen atom then God can created an entire universe full of them... God can manipulate the atoms to create life over billions of years... What does it take to "create" the first atom?
When you know the answer to this then you may be able to prove evolution over creation... Evolution is not just old bones but microorganisms and the plant kingdom and chemicals... If God can create a single atom it seems logical the God could create a whole sea of them. God could recreate the world in seven days too possibly...

Dinosaur Cove in Australia just re dated many species of dinosaurs to many thousands of years earlier then the American continent. Yet we see the same consistency of creatures maybe one will have developed a new appendage but they were still the same kinds of animals. If there was evolution these would have evolved to radically different branches of creatures due the the unpredictable nature of mutation and environment yet they are exactly the same kinds of animals with only a few traits that are seemingly evolution "within" kind...

Even Darwin saw problems with evolution... but these are not reasons to scrap the whole theory. It is still called a theory isn't it. Well this is why...

Also,
There is no explanation as to why life "suddenly" evolved so very late on the earth when it could have evolved earlier. Yet "millions" of years went by and no life on earth...

When you trace certain "kinds" of animals back they all seem to dead end before they converge with other "kinds" of creatures. Like did cats evolve from dogs or the other way around? I am sure some one has made a "guess" but the links are not there in the fossils for most kinds of creatures.

A side note...
It is like Noah came and weeded them out and the flood left no trace of a few thousand years... Is Noah why scientists can't prove evolution? Noah was the recorded worlds first bio engineer. And we are still trying to figure out what he did to the life on earth.

So there is definitely something that gives evolutionists pause. Like Neanderthal... we were not even able to breed with these creatures. But we cannot see the fossil records in the past where we were linked actually linked to these creatures. They don't even know where they evolved from... somewhere in Spain they think... evolution just assumes the ties exist somewhere, we have fossils that go back millions of years earlier but there are consistently key sections of history with almost every "kind" of creature known including plants.. that are missing... I still believe in evolution because science makes a convincing case but also because I know the Bible teaches it too... otherwise I would be more skeptical of it.

Evolution is a wonderful compliment to how God formed, made and created the heavens and earth. But there is still the puzzle as to where these links in the fossil records have gone... It is like the earth generated several lines of species independently of each other. So these may have evolved on biological scale first that we cannot see in the earth records. I do not think science has microbial fossils from millions of years ago because the cells die and decay leaving no trace of the DNA that was in the cells (I may be wrong). Maybe a cellular essence of humans were once microscopic I don't know... The "kinds" of creatures may have been decided on that level... In the earth's history the dinosaurs may have evolved from the microscopic and the humans may have evolved from an entirely different kind of microscopic biology and time in the earth. See how up in the air this all still is? Was human sexuality developed with pollen in flowers? No one knows... Maybe we are only related to some species on a biological level. This is why evolution has not and may never be proven... Yes, it appears likely but it is still a "theory". We just don't know for "sure" how it all fits together yet...

I say look at this world around us... someone or something put it here... THAT IS FOR SURE Smile

It did not "completely" self create and the atoms themselves tell us roughly how old they are. I recall the last reading was as two and a half billion years ago... The atom was brought about by obviously something. So was matter "created" in the big bang? I think so, or at least matter as we know it... So matter can be created if the atom was created in the big bang... Science is confusing itself on this one. Smile

If the remnant of the big bang was a new particle "hydrogen" and space for it to roam around and collect other hydrogen particles through gravity to become suns, then this is "creation". An unimaginable amount of a new particle in a space and time that can evolve into the suns => elements and ultimately life. The essence and ultimate height and breath of life emulates the creator of this hydrogen...

I have heard the rule of chemistry that matter is neither created or destroyed.. Well matter was created in order for it to exist...

The law of conservation of mass:
The law of conservation of mass states that the mass of a system of substances is constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter changes form, but cannot be created or destroyed.

Comment:
Whether if matter is either in energy form or a solid mass it still exists. Matter can be created scientists! Open you eyes and look around and that is proof. It is not a theory... MATTER IS CREATED... The matter is here every day so until you look outside and there is no more "matter" then there will no longer be any "proof" and you can call me wrong. It is a logical assumption that matter was and is created out of the obvious fact that it is seen and observed by so many in a collective thing we as humans refer to as reality.. Just because chemists have not found a way to destroy matter does not mean it cannot be.. The same with creating matter existence is the proof that matter can be created.

Atoms cannot be created in the physical model we live in but outside of our physical world there is, surely as I am typing this post, a mechanism that can "create" matter... thus we have hydrogen atoms that are fused into other more complex elements.

The Bible even specifically talks about matter being destroyed if you can believe that...
2 Peter 3:12
Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Comment:
Look how perfect the word of God is... not a single word amiss in this phrase... I am sure this is not the kind of "fire" scientists are familiar with... This tells me the answer science cannot know...

ELEMENTS SHALL MELT... that is matter being destroyed... It stands in total contrast of what scientists can "see". Yet it speaks of a truth that no one can doubt... Because matter IS created (because we can see it) and it CAN ultimately, be destroyed...

This is the blind side of science which it has no answer for and thus makes science seem rather empty and void. Don't get me wrong the wonders of scientific discoveries are a marvel, but they lead to a drop off where the reality science would have us believe seems to disintegrate before our eyes and resemble un-rendered wire frame world at the threshold of imperfection. Why? Because it is life from our "own" perspective... It is relativity Smile to borrow a word... hehe. It is like a model T car trying to understand Henry Ford... So we can refute creation as we sit at the table and eat dinner and as we drive around in our cars and as we look into the night sky, see the stars and say we are simply here because of an accident...
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 07:11 pm
Quote:


Refute creationism? Impossible because it does not exist or impossible be cause you are not able to do so?


I am not able to do so. I wouldnt make the arrogant post shown by your other interpretation. I cant say Creationism is impossible because it assumes a divine entity. All knowledge/logic/facts/ideas/evidence are thrown out the window at that point.
0 Replies
 
Rex the Wonder Squirrel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 07:23 pm
Well would you look at that, Rex and Rex with mile-long posts loaded with facts. We could be a tag team. Tour the country. Or not. Whatever.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 07:36 pm
El-Diablo wrote:
Quote:


Refute creationism? Impossible because it does not exist or impossible be cause you are not able to do so?


I am not able to do so. I wouldn't make the arrogant post shown by your other interpretation. I cant say Creationism is impossible because it assumes a divine entity. All knowledge/logic/facts/ideas/evidence are thrown out the window at that point.


"divine entity" are just words... I could say: radiant power, supreme being, big thing, invisible intelligence, cosmic energy, illusive atmosphere, they all mean the same thing... Whether if the design is intelligent enough, enough intelligent people (scientists) have dedicated their lives to observing this phenomenon of we term as "existence" and the more they look the more detail they find. Smile
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 08:03 pm
Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:
Well would you look at that, Rex and Rex with mile-long posts loaded with facts. We could be a tag team. Tour the country. Or not. Whatever.


Smile I liked your post, it made me think.
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 08:03 pm
But those words all imply the same thing.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 08:05 pm
El-Diablo wrote:
But those words all imply the same thing.


I was just wondering if it was the words or God you were talking about.


You wrote:

All knowledge/logic/facts/ideas/evidence are thrown out the window at that point.

Comment:
A person doesn't have to be a Christian to be narrow minded...
Just because a Christian suddenly has a spiritual connection with God does not mean they lose the connection to their brain. Some do though but so do many non christians and they don't even need God as an excuse. It is a choice that all people make if they want the lights on when they are at home... Smile
0 Replies
 
Rex the Wonder Squirrel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 09:09 pm
Quote:
I liked your post, it made me think.


But...you believe in a divine being, so you're not allowed to think. Or use logic, or be knowledgeable, or understand fundamental concepts. Because all that's thrown out the window. Right?

Razz
0 Replies
 
Algis Kemezys
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 09:32 pm
I have another take on the evolution theory which contains the idea that the gods from greece Zeus and others were for real and I might have some vague evidence that Zeus was operating a transportation portal on Crete.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 10:52 pm
Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:
Well would you look at that, Rex and Rex with mile-long posts loaded with facts. We could be a tag team. Tour the country. Or not. Whatever.

Unless you made all of that up, it would have been proper in a forum like this to indicate from whence you obtained it. I would not be too proud of presenting other people's words as my own. I am not asking for a citation, but merely commenting on your failure to state what words you borrow.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 11:28 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:
Well would you look at that, Rex and Rex with mile-long posts loaded with facts. We could be a tag team. Tour the country. Or not. Whatever.

Unless you made all of that up, it would have been proper in a forum like this to indicate from whence you obtained it. I would not be too proud of presenting other people's words as my own. I am not asking for a citation, but merely commenting on your failure to state what words you borrow.


Try here Where Science Breaks Down.. :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 11:39 pm
The link's article "Where Science Breaks Down" does not break down science. The writer has broken many scientific rules which is to provide what is observed on planet earth - not in isolation, but to all the science that addresses the issues in question. One cannot talk only about fossils to describe the totality of the planet, and ignore all the other evidence. That's not science.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 11:44 pm
c.i., I was just having a little fun until farmerman shows up. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 54
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 04:51:23