PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution in Schools
       Same as Forced Religion?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

About 200 years ago, christian geologists realized that this hypothesis was simply impossible.  The earth was far older than 6,000 years, there was no evidence of a world wide flood and much evidence against it and animals had changed throughout earth's history.  Since then, all evidence has supported this conclusion, there has been no evidence found that supports a young earth.  This is why creationism is disproven.


MUCH earlier than that Augustine of Hippo (354-430AD) insisted that any interpretation of Genesis had to be done taking into account our knowledge of reality rather than a blind acceptance of Scripture.

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

The modern revival of creationism stems from the teaching of the Seventh Day Adventists especially George McCready Price who needed to shore up the teachings of that groups founder.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:44 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
marisadawn612

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon...
Where does it say the earth is only 6,000 years old? The calendars back then probably weren't the same as we have them now. There probably wasn't 24 hours in a day.
And the Bible is the most printed, most read, best seller ever since it began being available to the masses. Why would someone just make up a bunch of hoopla who knows how long ago, put it in a book titled the "Bible" and trillions of people spend money buying it?
And if we evolved from monkeys, why didn't the monkeys evolve? why do they still look like monkeys and we look like people?
Lastly, Creationism is a belief. Therefore, it cannot be proved or disproved.
And I'm not trying to get on anyone's bad side, I'm just looking for the facts. There are multiple websites that "disprove" creationism and multiple websites that disprove evolutionism. No one seems to have real facts that can't be proven wrong. You just have to have faith in what you believe in. I'm sorry for the way you believe, but it'll be your problem when you die and...don't go where I'm going. But I will pray for you.

(Edited by marisadawn612 4/2/2004 at 11:14 AM).


-------
Marisa Dawn
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 11:08 AM on April 2, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where does it say the earth is only 6,000 years old? The calendars back then probably weren't the same as we have them now. There probably wasn't 24 hours in a day.


That is the conclusion of very errant humans who insist on the inerrancy of the Bible.

And the Bible is the most printed, most read, best seller ever since it began being available to the masses. Why would someone just make up a bunch of hoopla who knows how long ago, put it in a book titled the "Bible" and trillions of people spend money buying it?


Because they are convinced that it contains spiritual truth, whether or not it contains the "Inerrant Word of God".

And if we evolved from monkeys, why didn't the monkeys evolve? why do they still look like monkeys and we look like people?


First, this statement indicates a severe lack of understanding on your part.  Nothing in evolutionary science states that we evolved from monkeys.   Whoever told you this was not speaking the truth.

Second to more directly answer your questions, the evidence indicates that Old World monkeys and humans  shared a common ancestor some 20 million years ago, so in the tree of primates, monkeys would be considered a cousin branch.  Intermediate species from the branch point have split into many other species of  primates, each one appropriately adapted to it's environment.

Your cousins did not die when you were born, and you don't expect them to look as if they were your identical twin do you?

I'm just looking for the facts.


Where would you like to start?

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/2/2004 at 2:39 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:40 AM on April 2, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: Of course they're just a few anomolus samples when compared to the overwhelming evidence that proclaims the earth is old.

So when new studies come along that disagree with an old earth (tests that were done in a uniformitarian lab I might add), you just flat out ignore it because it does not agree with your pressuposition? Usual.

Demon38: These tests were conducted by questionalbe science by people who have a dogmatic agenda, to prove the bible is literally correct by any means.

Oh! So now we have an admission. Those evolutionists at the lab sure do have a dogmatic agenda dont they! Thank you for acknowledging this fact for the first time. Maybe you did not catch it the first three times- The tests were conducted by evolutionists labs, nonetheless I agree with you that they have dogmatic agendas.

Demon38: When you look at all the other evidence, it's laughable to claim the Earth isn't billions of years old.  Mountains take 100's of millions of years to form.  And you never bothered to reply about plate tectonics when your ridiculous continental sprint claim was thouroughly disproven.

Have you ever observed a mountain form by means of millions of years? Didn't think so...you seemed so sure though.

Demon38: Typical creationist, cut and run when you can't refute the facts...

No, you may want to wait more than a day for a response. I know that the suspence must be killing you, but hold on to your britches.

Demon38: And what about ice core samples, or lake varves, or coral reef formation, or tree ring dating  and radiometric dating still hasn't been disproven.

Where am I trying to disprove radiometric dating? Looks more like Im trying to prove it....

Demon38: No, there is really no substansive evidence for a young earth, merely creationists desperate attempts that are completely refuted by reality.

Maybe when you stop hallucinating about watching those mountains form by means of millions of years, you can to begin to know that reality actually exists.

Demon38: Definition twister???  This is a quote from the Genetics Society of America. I'm sure a society of genetic scientists know a hell of a lot more about the definition of science than a scientific illiterate like you does.

Yes yes, I know that when I expose your tactic you would come up with some sort of insult. This just allows me to assume that you can't deal with it so that is your only means of defense. But, please let me know where I questioned the validity of the society of scientists you qouted, thats not even close to the point. The point is, you left the science definition out because it would be obvious that you were mixing the two. I don't blame you...

Demon38: This is ridiculous!  Why would you use C-14 dating on diamonds?  They are not organic, and they are far older than C-14 dating's 50,000 year upper limit!  Once again, here is a creationist misusing a tool and trying to say the data supports a young earth!  Commercial geologists have encountered levels of C-14 deep in the earth where they should not be, their explaination?  There are colonies of bacteria and fungi this far below the surface that accounts for the C-14.  So the readings for diamonds don't mean a young earth...

I don't care about your supposed links between humanism and evolution, a large portion of christians accept evolution, so your point goes out the window.

Eagle Eye Demon38 misses it again. The point is that there is carbon 14 present in crystals that are supposed to be billions of years old, so why is the carbon 14 present if it is only good up to 70,000 years at most? So, much thanks for adding strengh to my points again, your so helpful

Demon38: And yet, you insist that there really was a global flood, even though it is simply impossible!  So much for that point!

So, you consider and ancient flood operational science? So much for that point!

Demon38: Sorry, didn't see any terrible misconception I made...

Thats because you have your head burried in the sands of evolutionary dogma.

Cheers,
Toad


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 11:23 AM on April 3, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So when new studies come along that disagree with an old earth (tests that were done in a uniformitarian lab I might add), you just flat out ignore it because it does not agree with your pressuposition? Usual.

Anomalous data from one study does not overturn 2 centuries of study and observation, no matter how much you wish it was so.  If the zircon study was the norm, or other studies were found indicating the same results, then there would be a deeper investigation.  The fact remains that it is anomalous data gathered by researchers with an agenda.

Oh! So now we have an admission. Those evolutionists at the lab sure do have a dogmatic agenda dont they! Thank you for acknowledging this fact for the first time. Maybe you did not catch it the first three times- The tests were conducted by evolutionists labs, nonetheless I agree with you that they have dogmatic agendas.
Nice try.  It is not the lab that did the studies, it's the researchers who collected the samples.  How many times have YEC's gathered samples that they know are going to give faulty dates, and when the dates (as expected) are skewed, they trumpet their success?

Have you ever observed a mountain form by means of millions of years? Didn't think so...you seemed so sure though.
Yes, it has been observed.  The Himalayan mountains are growing right now, at the rate of 2.5-5 cm per year (after factoring in erosion):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas

No, you may want to wait more than a day for a response. I know that the suspence must be killing you, but hold on to your britches

Well, here we are, still waiting for you to dazzle us.  How long has it been now that I've been asking for YEC proof?  And you came up with one anomalous, incomplete study.  Sad really...

The point is, you left the science definition out because it would be obvious that you were mixing the two

You know, you might actually learn something if you didn't constantly try to deny reality.  No matter how much you want to bluster and deny, evolution is a scientific fact.  Get over it already, as I and others are getting very tired of repeating it (though it's been probably 50 years since YEC's had anything new to say, so what can I expect?)

Where am I trying to disprove radiometric dating? Looks more like Im trying to prove it....

No, what you are trying to do (while totally disregarding common sense) is trying to use the exception (an unproven exception at that) to prove the rule.
The point is that there is carbon 14 present in crystals that are supposed to be billions of years old, so why is the carbon 14 present if it is only good up to 70,000 years at most?


First off, who said they're supposed to be billions of years old?
Secondly, read this:
http://www.christian-forums.com/t80794&page=3
right at the bottom of the page.  AiG did not follow the procedure for submitting samples for carbon dating, which pretty much guarantees bad results.  Who would have expected such behaviour from YECs?  (Not to mention that diamonds are made of Carbon, so you'd expect strange ratios from them, seeing as how the C14/C12 ratio was not balancd to begin with, as it is in living things.  SO:
1) bad submission=skewed dates
2) made of Carbon=skewed dates
3)not living=skewed dates
Would you please provide a reference for where you got this information so I can actually read it?  You'll forgive me if I don't trust a word you say, I'm sure.

So, you consider and ancient flood operational science? So much for that point!

One thing to say about this: "?"

Thats because you have your head burried in the sands of evolutionary dogma.

That's just too funny!
Bravo YET, you just mastered the art of swallowing your own foot, never mind inserting it into your mouth.










-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:35 PM on April 3, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Anomalous data from one study does not overturn 2 centuries of study and observation, no matter how much you wish it was so.

Ok, I agree. Therefore, why do you still adhere to uniformitarianism?

TQ: If the zircon study was the norm, or other studies were found indicating the same results, then there would be a deeper investigation.

It's not the norm because it doesn't jive with the pressupposition of uniformitarianism, that does not suprise me. More and more is being revealed by this study (and similar ones) that do not jive with it however.

TQ: The fact remains that it is anomalous data gathered by researchers with an agenda.

You make it sound as though creationists are the only scientists who hold agendas. Wrong.

TQ: Nice try.  It is not the lab that did the studies, it's the researchers who collected the samples.

No, the laboratory experiments are what show the results, not the people who collected the samples in the first place.

TQ: How many times have YEC's gathered samples that they know are going to give faulty dates, and when the dates (as expected) are skewed, they trumpet their success?

Such as...

TQ: Yes, it has been observed. The Himalayan mountains are growing right now, at the rate of 2.5-5 cm per year (after factoring in erosion):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas

I assume that the observer, being millions of years old of course, sumbitted this data? Am I correct? That is a measurement of the present, not the past.

TQ: You know, you might actually learn something if you didn't constantly try to deny reality.

Im not trying to deny reality. Im just trying to deny uniformitarianism, there is a difference you know.

TQ: No matter how much you want to bluster and deny, evolution is a scientific fact.  Get over it already, as I and others are getting very tired of repeating it (though it's been probably 50 years since YEC's had anything new to say, so what can I expect?)

I already stated that I agree that the genes in a population can change over time, that being the technical definition of "evolution," I am not denying it by that definition.

TQ: Would you please provide a reference for where you got this information so I can actually read it?  You'll forgive me if I don't trust a word you say, I'm sure.

Check the latest addition of Creation Magazine.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 1:27 PM on April 4, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I agree. Therefore, why do you still adhere to uniformitarianism?

And I repeat: "Anomalous data from one study does not overturn 2 centuries of study and observation"

It's not the norm because it doesn't jive with the pressupposition of uniformitarianism, that does not suprise me. More and more is being revealed by this study (and similar ones) that do not jive with it however.

I've bolded the only valid part of your response.  Uniformitarianism is a presupposition, but one that is supported by the evidence.

You make it sound as though creationists are the only scientists who hold agendas. Wrong.

Right, I forgot about the "evolutionist conspiracy".  Let's not pay any attention to the fact that anyone who can falsify evolution would receive a nobel prize and the accolades of all his peers.

No, the laboratory experiments are what show the results, not the people who collected the samples in the first place.

Uh, no.  The results obtained depend highly on conditions of retrieval, location, methods of handling, packing, etc.  The lab takes these factors into account when dating samples, as they and many other factors can skew the results wildly.

Such as...

two right of the bat:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul97.html

When the creationists obtain an obviously incorrect date on their own, the reason is usually a deliberate violation of the requirements of the dating method. (This is a bit like smashing a wristwatch with a hammer, complaining about the fact that the crushed watch does not keep time properly... and then suggesting that all wristwatches must therefore be incapable of keeping time.) For example, see my Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project -- or my note on carbon dating in The May 1997 Feedback.



As for the dinosaur bone, I'd guess that it is a somewhat garbled retelling of a CSREF (a creationist organization here in Ohio) escapade. If so, CSREF's claims have been answered by Brad Lepper (1992). (The part about "retesting" is probably untrue; carbon dating is not capable of yielding results in the millions-of-years range.) Carbon dating is fairly reliable when applied carefully and properly. Unfortunately, CSREF did not do so. In fact, prior to an actual date being computed, the U. of Arizona lab told them that: (1) the fossil bone contained no collagen (meaning that all of the original bone material had been replaced and any resulting date could not possibly represent the time of death of the animal that the bone came from); and (2) it was loaded with shellac "and other contaminants" (meaning that it was known in advance that the resulting date would not be valid). CSREF told the laboratory to go ahead and perform the date anyway. Obviously CSREF wasn't interested in an honest test of carbon dating; they misrepresented the source of the material and ignored checks which indicated its unsuitability for dating. As Brad Lepper said:

"Such deliberate disregard of the warnings from both the Carnegie and Arizona suggests not mere ignorance of the limitations of radiocarbon dating nor even simple incompetence, but a premeditated intent to deceive. CSREF researchers must have known the radiocarbon dates on the Carnegie speciments would be hopelessly compromised by the contaminants. They knew the "dates" would be meaningless, but they also knew they would appear recent."
1992, p. 8


I assume that the observer, being millions of years old of course, sumbitted this data? Am I correct? That is a measurement of the present, not the past.

Once again, uniformitarianism is supported by the evidence.  This is an average of measurements taken over decades, so it can reasonably be assumed to hold true.

Im not trying to deny reality. Im just trying to deny uniformitarianism, there is a difference you know.

Actually, the evidence says that uniformitarianism is the reality, so you are denying reality

Check the latest addition of Creation Magazine.

Gee, my suscription must have lapsed.  How about a URL?





-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:29 PM on April 4, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Young Earth Toad wrote: TQ: Yes, it has been observed. The Himalayan mountains are growing right now, at the rate of 2.5-5 cm per year (after factoring in erosion):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas

I assume that the observer, being millions of years old of course, sumbitted this data? Am I correct? That is a measurement of the present, not the past.


That is quite true. However, do you suggest that scientific observation can only be taken to apply to today worlds alone?

Where do you draw the line for extrapolation?

How do you explain practical applications of science that take todays rates and draw them back through Earth history (millions of years for example) successfully?

If you unsure of an example, Oil exploration is a good start.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:02 PM on April 4, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism was desively disproven over 200 years ago so it should not be taught as science.


Obviously this concept isn't taking quite the hold you had hoped... you're still debating it 200 years later.  (of course thats just a harmless jibe and not intended to spark an intellectual response)

And here is the meat and potatoes folks -

So, you consider and ancient flood operational science?


Scientists are quick to point out canyons on Mars may have been carved out by massive floods.  Interesting considering they haven't found water on Mars... yet if you say that the Grand Canyon was  caused by a flood and you get outrage, even though 70% of earth is covered in water.  

Evolutionists come up with all sorts of global catastophies that must have happend in the past to explain situations and "facts" through the lense of evolution.  

When one finds a fossil of an isolated tooth or shell, for example, it is not possible to say how quickly or slowly it formed. However, there are countless examples of fossils concerning which it is obvious that long time-spans could not have been involved. For instance, fossils which have features so beautifully preserved that they must have been buried and hardened before they could be damaged by scavengers or decay.  This is part of the "no evidence whatsover to support a flood" department?

Demon38: When you look at all the other evidence, it's laughable to claim the Earth isn't billions of years old.


The Earth is Not Millions of Years Old
Evidence For a Young World
Dr. D Russel Humphreys

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
A dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. This booklet makes a great witnessing tool.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.

4. Not enough sodium in the sea
Every year, river and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.
A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data. The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.

And more....
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years
9. Helium in the wrong places
10. Not enough stone age skeletons
11. Agriculture is too recent
12. History is too short

No... there is plenty of evidence to support EVERYTHING in Genesis and the rest of the Bible.  Evolutionists are far too busy trying to prove they don't need to be accountable to God.  That's what evolution is - how did everything come to be assuming there was no God.  You see... there is NO ROOM in Evolution science for Creation.  The basic thesis statement for Evolution is "lets assume there is no God..."  Evolution can't open it's mind to the possibility, even though there is plenty of evidence.  Yet christian's are called "fundamentalist" or "laughable" or "lacking science".  

It stems from this simple fact.  We believe there is an ultimate truth.  We believe in absolutes.  We believe the Bible is the absolute truth.  

You don't want to believe that there is an absolute truth because you don't want to be held accountable to anyone but yourself.  There is a word for that, folks... it's called anarchy.  It's called humanism.  Therein lies the science of evolution, and the basis of your faith.


To bring the thread back to the main topic - as a creationist, I am not in the business of forcing anyone to practice or participate in my religion.  Only, that we allow the free flow of ideas in our schools so that our kids are given choices.  Instead of blind faith in the evolutionist dogma in the scientific community, they should be given multiple theories, and the opportunity to start critical thinking on each.  Replace "GOD" with "Intelligent Designer" if you must to keep it politically correct.  But at least get rid of the monopolizing of ideas enjoyed by the evolutionist point of view.


(Edited by Gup20 4/6/2004 at 12:19 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 03:52 AM on April 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In reply to yor eidences for a young earth:


and in rebuttal:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Why is it that each creationist presents the exact same arguments as any other creationist, arguments which were refuted 25 years ago or more for the most part, and we are all supposed to fall at their feet in awe?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:10 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, first PRATT

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.


So what? There are plenty more available to replenish the ones used up.  There was a little more credibility to this before the confirmation of the Kuiper Belt in 1992.  But since we can now see the reservoir of comets, there is no longer any basis for this argument.

The comet Wild2 for instance was first thrown into a sun approaching orbit out of it's frigid storage orbit in 1974,  so  whether it lasts 100,000, 10,000, or only another 100 years, we can SEE available replacements.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:59 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:59 PM on April 6, 2004 :
OK, first PRATT
So what? There are plenty more available to replenish the ones used up.  There was a little more credibility to this before the confirmation of the Kuiper Belt in 1992.  But since we can now see the reservoir of comets, there is no longer any basis for this argument.

The comet Wild2 for instance was first thrown into a sun approaching orbit out of it's frigid storage orbit in 1974,  so  whether it lasts 100,000, 10,000, or only another 100 years, we can SEE available replacements.



Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

In reply to yor eidences for a young earth:


Well TQ - lets see what we can find at your "online bible" site, talkorigins.org

Point1
To refute point 1, talkorigins.org says "Spiral arms are density waves which, like sound in air, travel through the galaxy's disk causing a piling-up of stars and gas at the crests of the waves. In some galaxies, the central bulge reflects the wave, giving rise to a giant standing spiral wave with a uniform rotation rate and a lifetime of about one or two billion years.
The causes of the density waves are still not known, but there are many possibilities. Tidal effects from a neighboring galaxy probably cause some of them.
The spiral pattern is energetically favorable. Spiral configurations develop spontaneously in computer simulations based on gravitational dynamics. [Carlberg et al. 1999] "

Creation science says "Our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old (according to Evolution). Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’. The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.

Point 2
see above

Point 3
Can't find anything on talkorigins.org about that point

Point 4
Can't find anyting on talkorigins.org page about this one either.

Point 5
Talkorigins.org says, "Empirical measurement of earth's magnetic field doesn't show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.
The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity [Gee et al. 2000] and reversed in polarity numerous times in Earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models [Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995] and geophysical evidence [Song and Richards 1996] of the earth's interior.
Barnes [1973] relies on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He views it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cites Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.
Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged. "

Creation Science says, "The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.
A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data. The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old."

Point 6
Couldn't find any info on the talkorigins page

Creationists say, "In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition."

Point 7
Couldn't find anything on talkorigins.org page

Creationists say, "Strong geologic evidence exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone — formed an alleged 500 million years ago — of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale."

Point 8
Talkorigins.org says, "Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that Po-haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks. [Brawley 1992; Wakefield 1998]
The biotite in which Gentry obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite which intruded a paragneiss which formed from highly metamorphosed sediments. Thus all of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows. It is possible God created this appearance of age, but that reduces Gentry's argument to the omphalos argument, for which evidence is irrelevant. [Wakefield 1998]
Stromatolites are found in rocks intruded by (and therefore older than) the dikes which Gentry's samples came from, showing that living things existed before the rocks which Gentry claims are primordial."

Creationists say, "Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. ‘Squashed’ Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. ‘Orphan’ Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.  There have also been many discoveries of these same halos in petrified wood.  The nature of thesediscoveries even support the flood."

Point 9
talkorigins.org says, "Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements. [Liesvendsen and Rees 1996] "

Creation Science says, "All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth’s atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years. This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years."

Points 10, 11, 12
Nothing on Talkorigins.org page

Creation Science says, "10. Not enough stone age skeletons
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

11. Agriculture is too recent
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.

12. History is too short
According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely."


Since TQ didn't seem to want to take the time to include evidence with his remarks, I thought I would do the "legwork" for him.

I couldn't find 7 of the 12 items on the talk origins page (amoung the 600-700 items) he gave... so he may have some additional knowledge of those refutations of my original 12 points.

(Edited by Gup20 4/6/2004 at 5:57 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:49 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ -

Your argument is startling.  Again you have proven only how closed minded you are, and how closed minded your religion of evolution is.

Science is about the exploration of ideas.  In that, you have proven an inability to practice science.

You can't even begin to contemplate these and other evidences.  Your "laughing" at your own ignorance.

I took the "time" to read through the unconvincing babbeling on the talkorigins website.  99% of that site is rote evolutionary dogma based on bad science and wishful thinking, as well as a willful ignorance of the evidence.  

Let me give you an example - the site gives an extensive long drawn out explanation of Mutation.  However, in it's entirety, it fails to account for how new genetic information is added.  Furthermore it goes on to explain in great detail rules and laws of genetics which make single cell to complex cell evolution impossible.  For example, it desribes how a tall and short parent will not necessarily produce a medium offispring.  The offspring will have both tall and short genes and they may epress themselves differently from offspring to offspring.  This is used to show how a species can very.  However, it must be noted that for this variation to occur, the offspring must inherit the trait from an existing gene in the parent.  

Evolution (and talkorigins.org) are chalked full of assumptions and instances where you are expected to accept an erroneous or impossible statement, simply because the "other facts" are plentiful and accurate.   For example, we all know full well that mutation cannot add genetic information, but only shifts, re-arranges, or copies existing information.  No new information is ever gained through mutation or recombinnation.  It's a clever evolutionist's scheme... lull you for an hour with observable facts and then introduce an unobserved assumption as fact.  

Here is the progression - a, b, and c are fact.  However for evolution to be true, D needs to be a fact.  We can't observe D, and as a matter of fact there is plenty of evidence against it... but it must be true, so obviously D is a fact.  Whereas, if E were true, rather than D, creation might be plausible or even proven.  E is provable but is ignored or critizized because it doesn't serve the purpose of bringing us to the conclusion we all have already decided is true (evolution).  E becomes "nonsense riddled with errors that is laughable and doesn't deserve the time it takes to refute".  This of course is clever way of saying "it can't be refuted logically, so I will attack it based on my own opinion".  Since I am always right in my own mind, I should be able to win that debate.

So TQ - again - I think you need to keep a more open mind that you probably haven't arrived.  If you perhaps spent some time critically thinking about these things instead of being a "partisan scientist" who cares nothing for facts, but cares only for defending your religous dogma - which is exactly what Evolution is, you would see the many holes in evolution.  

I am not saying that I am not basing my creationistic belief on my christian faith in the bible... I most certianly am.  However, I am not pretending to be objective either.  



 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 9:19 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing he keeps repeating over and over is that evolution denies the existance of God, and he ignores the fact that most of the worlds Christians accept the theory of evolution!

(Edited by admin 4/7/2004 at 08:44 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:17 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution (and talkorigins.org) are chalked full of assumptions and instances where you are expected to accept an erroneous or impossible statement, simply because the "other facts" are plentiful and accurate.   For example, we all know full well that mutation cannot add genetic information, but only shifts, re-arranges, or copies existing information.  No new information is ever gained through mutation or recombinnation.  It's a clever evolutionist's scheme... lull you for an hour with observable facts and then introduce an unobserved assumption as     fact.

No this is not true.  Evolution is not full of assumptions or errors.  It is an objectively derived scientific theory soley based on all available evidence. Let's take a look at what some real scientific organizations say about the TOE...

From the Genetics Society of America:

"Science operates first by observation, and then by developing a hypothesis as a preliminary explanation of the data. A theory is a hypothesis that has been subsequently confirmed by abundant, consistent data obtained from tests of the hypothesis. The theory of evolution by natural selection is exactly such a confirmed hypothesis, as developed through the ongoing investigation and understanding of many different areas of biological, chemical, physical and earth science. As such, it is modifiable and constantly refined as new research and information come to light. Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology, and anthropology."

So evolution is ESSENTIAL to understand modern biology.  And what I find ineresting is you make the claim that mutations can not add new information and so evolution is disproven, and yet, the Genetics society of America, the experts on mutation and genetics, disagree with you 100%.  Plainly they support evolution and contend that it is essential to modern biology.  What do you know that they don't?  

From the Geological Society of America:

"Misinterpreting the Bible's creation narratives as scientific statements, many creationists go so far as to attack the validity of geologic time — time that extends back billions of years. "Deep time" is the foundation of modern geology. It was actually well established, though not quantified, by geologists decades before Darwin published his ideas or most scientists came to accept evolution as the explanation for the history of life. Furthermore, thousands of geologists employing many new modes of research refined the geologic time scale during the Twentieth Century. Near the start of that century, the discovery of naturally occurring radioactive substances provided clocks for measuring actual ages for segments of the geologic record. Today, some billion-year-old rocks can be dated with a precision of less than a tenth of one percent. Moreover, modern geologists can identify particular environments where sediments that are now rocks accumulated hundreds of millions of years ago: margins of ancient oceans where tides rose and fell, for example, and valley floors across which rivers meandered back and forth, and ancient reefs that grew to thicknesses of hundreds of meters but were built by organisms that could not have grown faster than a few millimeters a year. By studying the fossil record that forms part of this rich archive of Earth¹s history, paleontologists continue to uncover details of the long and complex history of life."

The overwhelming majority of geologists agree, all the evidence trumpets the fact that the earth is very old, 4.5 billion years old.

Again, from the Geological Society of America:

"Misinterpreting the Bible's creation narratives as scientific statements, many creationists go so far as to attack the validity of geologic time — time that extends back billions of years. "Deep time" is the foundation of modern geology. It was actually well established, though not quantified, by geologists decades before Darwin published his ideas or most scientists came to accept evolution as the explanation for the history of life. Furthermore, thousands of geologists employing many new modes of research refined the geologic time scale during the Twentieth Century. Near the start of that century, the discovery of naturally occurring radioactive substances provided clocks for measuring actual ages for segments of the geologic record. Today, some billion-year-old rocks can be dated with a precision of less than a tenth of one percent. Moreover, modern geologists can identify particular environments where sediments that are now rocks accumulated hundreds of millions of years ago: margins of ancient oceans where tides rose and fell, for example, and valley floors across which rivers meandered back and forth, and ancient reefs that grew to thicknesses of hundreds of meters but were built by organisms that could not have grown faster than a few millimeters a year. By studying the fossil record that forms part of this rich archive of Earth¹s history, paleontologists continue to uncover details of the long and complex history of life."

From the National Acadamy of Sciences:

"It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its account of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. It subordinates evidence to statements based on authority and revelation. Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid."

Again, this is the consensus of the scientific world, creationism is NOT science and the evidence for creationism has been disproven.






 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:20 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No this is not true.  Evolution is not full of assumptions or errors.  It is an objectively derived scientific theory soley based on all available evidence.

So that's what an evolutionist does when genetics agrees that you can't add information to DNA - then the evolutionist basically claims the exact opposite to be the foundation of how all living things evolved on the earth?  They are "objectively basing their theories on the available evidence"?

It is very clear that they are turning a blind eye to the available evidence if it doesnt' support their pre-supposition in the first place.

This isn't science... it's politics... it's partisanship... it's a form of faith (believing in things you can't see), you could even call it a religion, because that's what it's become.

The overwhelming majority of geologists agree, all the evidence trumpets the fact that the earth is very old, 4.5 billion years old.

Well it's a good thing that truth isn't determined by a popular vote.  Otherwise, the earth would be flat... the planets would all revolve around earth, and evolution would be true.

I think I have said it before, but let me say agian.  I was in a genetics class at the University of Minnesota, and the professor went on to describe in intricate detail what a mutation was.  The professor stressed the fact that mutations cannot add genetic information but can only re-arrange or destroy genetic information.  The same professor went on to finish THAT SAME CLASS period on how evolution was so evident in genetics.  

It was as though he wanted to speak the truth, and teach us actual facts, but he was afraid his scientific merit badge would be revoked if he continued down that path without a good wholesome pep-talk about the "holy motherland" (I of course refer to evolution).

And that is precisely what I see here on this forum and from evolutionists in general that I have encountered.  Instantly your credibility, regardless of your evidence or work is summerily dismissed the minute you disparage the "holy mother" of humanism - the great theory of evolution.

If there is one thing I have learned - EVERY discovery is subject to change.  EVERY theory is subject to revisal based on a proponderance of new facts and data pro or con.  Every theory, that is, EXCEPT for evolution.  

Let me ask you this - what evidence would you accept to prove or show that the Bible is true?  After all... isn't that the point of secular humanistic view (of which Darwin and the peers of his day subscribed, indeed it was the reason he developed his origin of life theory).  

What evidence would lead you to believe that creation WAS POSSIBLE if not probable?  

I can full heartedly say that many aspects of evolution are possible and even probable.  The basis of my belief otherwise is my faith in God and the Bible.  It tells me a different point of view.  One which is substanciated by evidence on the earth.  So it is the one I accept as truth.

However, I would find it interesting to see if any of you here would step out of your dogmatic religous ferver for a moment and admit the possibility that the Bible is true.  But you can't do that, can you?  You can't risk admitting one iota of the Bible to be true.  That would jepardize your ability to live abscent of Moral Authority.  You would somehow be bound to it's law.

Christianity is not about Law... its about covenant with God.  It's about fellowship and communication - an unseparation between God and Man... that separation being caused just after creation by Adam and Eve in man's Fall.  The fall caused death, entropy, which is literally defined as separation from God.  

Is that really so scarry?  I tell you what - there is none more free than those who are in christ.  In America the very notion of freedom stems from the philosophies and teachings of the Bible.

The Bible makes it very clear that our lives are to be a choice between life and blessing or death and cursing.  He encourages us to choose life and blessing, however the thing that makes us human is our ability to choose for ourselves.

I hope and pray that those reading this choose life.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 05:46 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So that's what an evolutionist does when genetics agrees that you can't add information to DNA

But as has been pointed out to you innumerable times, genetics DOESN'T agree that you can't add information to DNA.  It's a fact, an observed fact, that mutations CAN add information to the genome.  You keep denying this, but you can't support your position with any evidence.

This isn't science... it's politics... it's partisanship... it's a form of faith (believing in things you can't see), you could even call it a religion, because that's what it's become.

Of course it's science!  Evolution is the very basis for modern biology and medecine!  It's not politics, it's not partisanship and it most certainly isn't faith!  The theory of evolution is deduced from the evidence, overwhelming evidence!  And of course it's not a religion, nothing is taken dogmatically, like with creationism, nothing is attributed to an unknowable, unprovable supernatural being.

Well it's a good thing that truth isn't determined by a popular vote.  Otherwise, the earth would be flat... the planets would all revolve around earth, and evolution would be true.

And it's a good thing truth isn't determined by Christianity's faulty interpretation of the Bible, I mean, afterall, it was the Church that dogmatically enforced the ideas that the earth was flat and the planets revovle around the earth!  Luckily science was able to overcome the dogmatic grip of religion!  The point is the experts that really study this, who devote their lives to it, all agree, there really is no debate...the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

I think I have said it before, but let me say agian.  I was in a genetics class at the University of Minnesota, and the professor went on to describe in intricate detail what a mutation was.  The professor stressed the fact that mutations cannot add genetic information but can only re-arrange or destroy genetic information.

Well, he was wrong, simple as that!  I showed you examples of mutations adding genetic information, I've shown you experts who actually disect genes and OBSERVE genetic information that was added!  AGain, this isn't even up for debate, it's a fact, information (complexity) can be added due to mutations.

If there is one thing I have learned - EVERY discovery is subject to change.  EVERY theory is subject to revisal based on a proponderance of new facts and data pro or con.  Every theory, that is, EXCEPT for evolution.

Every theory SHOULD be subject to change, subject to falsification in the face of new evidence!  This is the great strength of science, nothing is taken dogmatically, everything is provisional based on the latest evidence!  The theory of evolution is no exception.  It has changed over the last 150 years, yet it still hasn't been falsified.  It is intellectually perverse to deny it's provisional veracity!  You have tried to do so with half truths, misconceptions and down right falsehoods and you have failed miserably!

You still don't get it,  evolution does NOT equal atheism!  The majority of the world's christians accept evolution!  I was a christain for 30 years, but from the time I was 7 or 8, and first learned a little about evolution, it made sense to me, and there was no conflict between loving God and accepting evolution.

However, I would find it interesting to see if any of you here would step out of your dogmatic religous ferver for a moment and admit the possibility that the Bible is true.  But you can't do that, can you?  You can't risk admitting one iota of the Bible to be true.  That would jepardize your ability to live abscent of Moral Authority.  You would somehow be bound to it's law.

Untrue!  Some of the bible is undoubtedly true, but the supernatural elements are obviously just myths, 6 day creation, Noah's flood, Tower of Babel, people living for hondreds of years, people rising from the dead, just myths with no evidence to support them.  It has been said extrodanary claims require extrodanary evidence, the bible doesn't meet this criterion.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:32 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Gup20 at Tue April 6, 2004 - 5:49 PM
Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


You might have plagarized this yesterday, but Humphreys wrote it years ago.  I gave you the courtesy of composing my own response from current information.  Humphreys would not have written these same words today, because they are so glaringly out of date and inaccurate.  He is smart enough not to look foolish.

Christianity has successfully absorbed the concept of long ages and evolution with an appreciation of the spiritual truths of the Bible, Fundamentalism has not.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:39 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OccamsRazor: How do you explain practical applications of science that take todays rates and draw them back through Earth history (millions of years for example) successfully?

I take them as, we do not know for sure that many of those rates have not changed in past years (thousands or millions) because no one was there to babysit the rates to be sure that they have not sped up or slowed down in the past.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 10:54 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I take them as, we do not know for sure that many of those rates have not changed in past years (thousands or millions) because no one was there to babysit the rates to be sure that they have not sped up or slowed down in the past.


We infer ALL measurements from past events.  The photons hitting your eyeballs were emitted from the CRT  about 2 nanoseconds ago.  The light from the sun took 8 minutes.  It's all a matter of degree.  What we can do is establish a framework and ask what would happen if decay rates had changed.  All the existing evidence is that it has not, from the thermodynamics of granite formation, to the Oklo reactor decay products, to the recent confirmation that the fine structure constant is in fact constant.
Fine Structure Constant 4 April 2004

What you are suggesting is known as "Omphalos".  As a theological position it was rejected in the 1850s because it portays God as a deceitful trickster.  The  basis of Western science originated from the Christian principle that God is good and not capricious, so that the laws of the universe are knowable.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:21 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The theory of evolution is deduced from the evidence, overwhelming evidence!

This is of course not an objective statment.  Obviously, and evolutionist will interpret any data they observe through the lens of evolutionary thought.  The same exact argument can be used (and is frequently used) by creationists.  Once you change your presuppositions, the same data can change to favor the other position.  You have domonstrated this very concept with the statment "Evolution is the very basis for modern biology and medecine!", which is to say, everything you believe about the world in which you live is based on the theory of evolution being true.  No wonder you ignore any direct evidence in favor of creationism - the world as you know it would be shattered.

But as has been pointed out to you innumerable times, genetics DOESN'T agree that you can't add information to DNA.  It's a fact, an observed fact, that mutations CAN add information to the genome.  You keep denying this, but you can't support your position with any evidence

In actuality, I have provided many sources of evidence, which you have appearantly ignored.  I even showed you how your bacteria data was flawed.  Yet you continue to state how I don't provide evidence.  I don't intend to be rude, but pardon me.  I have been providing evidence with the majority of my statements.  In fact, it is YOU who has provided no evidence to the couter the evidence I presented.  For example, when I posted the evidence showing why your analysis of the bacteria was flawed, you in turn responded with no further evidence, but simply claimed that "the evidence was overwhelming" and had shown that your position was true.

What I am trying to show you is how flawed both your methods and your statements are.  You offer no evidence, but then arbitrarily claim I am wrong.  

One thing I have managed to demonstrate, however, is that my original statement about you is correct - you said christianity was disproven 200 years ago, and I said that is only because you have ignored the evidence for 200 years.  This seems even more correct now, given your propensity to ignore any evidence I bring out and automatically assert your position as dominant (regarless of your ability to prove it, or your lack of evidence).  I showed you actual evidence that it is impossible, to add new information, and your rebuttal was nothing but grandstanding and claiming repeatedly that you were right and I was wrong.  Evidence?  You got any?


nothing is attributed to an unknowable, unprovable supernatural being

Christianity is a relationship with God.  I know this from experience.  Many christians do treat their faith like a religion - structured repetitive traditions.  I personally don't.  I have a personal relationship with God.  I talk to him, he answers me.  He shows me his goodness, mercy, and love.  He helps me and guides me.  Just because YOU do not know God, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.  Just because YOU refuse to see doesn't mean millions of other people on this plannet havent' opened their eyes.

I was a christain for 30 years

It is a shame you treated it like a religion instead of moving into a real relationship with God.  At least there is forgiveness should you ever make the choice to seek him again.

Perhaps the reason you are no longer a christian is the fact that "since you were 7 or 8" you allowed evolution to undermine the authority of God's word in your life.  The Bible does talk about people like that -

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,  
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,  
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;  
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.  

Clearly - 3:2 speaks to humanism but the last verse 3:5 really speaks to your situation.  You "put on" as it were a pretense of a covenant with God and called it religion - called it christianity.  Your heart was never fully his.  You never saught after God (the bible says Seek and ye shall find, ask and it will be opened).  You allowed a humanistic view to cloud your view of God and you fell away.  Not really surprising is it?

Like I said, you are not without hope.  His love and grace will always be extended until the day that you die, sealing your eternal fate.  

The point is the experts that really study this, who devote their lives to it, all agree, there really is no debate...the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old

Only if they ignore the overwhelming list of information that points to a less than 10,000 year old earth, I can see how they would arrive at this conclusion.  Or - if every school they ever went to said that it was the only possible solution I can see how that might effect their judgement/perspective/pre-suppositions.

Oh my my my... that brings us back to the topic of this thread.  Should only evolution be taught in schools.  I think no.  I think that students should be taught the evolution perspective and the creation perspective.  If indeed there is "overwhelming evidence" to support one or the other - then there should be no need to worry that students are "lead astray".  Meanwhile it will promote critical thinking skills.  Let students learn to measure and weigh things for themselves.  Let them learn to interpret data in an objective environment.  No need to teach that Jesus died on the cross for your sins... refering to god as "an intelligent designer" would satisfiy the separation of church and state myth the US court system has upheld in our country.  The point is, how can anyone make any sort of objective discovery, or even think critically about a subject when their science is prejuidiced by a one sided education system?  It's not good for science to stifle opposing view points - it discourages advancement.


(Edited by Gup20 4/7/2004 at 3:57 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:13 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you said christianity was disproven 200 years ago, and I said that is only because you have ignored the evidence for 200 years.

Freudian slip here?  Last time I checked, no one said that christianity was disproven.  Creationism, which is a firnge cult that most christians disavow/abhor was disproven 200 years ago.

Gup, let me state a few things:
1) elieving that the ToE is true does not make you a non christian
2) believing the bible is the literal truth does not make you a christian

There.  Baldly stated.  I don't know how to make that point any plainer.

As for your evidence.  You have provided nothing but the same old, tired creationist claims that have been disproven years ago.  In fact, you even went so far as to plagarize old claims by a prominen creationist, ones which he has even admitted are outdated.  And here we have hit upon creationism's greatest failing-the lack of growth and change.  As you said, scientific theories grow and change as new evidence is discovered, with old theories being discarded if they do not fit te evidence.  Creationism, on the other hand, does no such thing, as you have amply demonstrated by offering up "evidence" that was refuted decades ago in some cases.  Creationists like to bring up Piltdown man as a black eye for evolution.  Do you see any one touting Piltdown man as proof of evolution today?  No, because it was found to not be true (a fraud in fact)  Creationism, unfortunately, has no such standards, and continues to trumpet falsehoods.

From what I can see of your posts, you want us to simply fall over and believe your right because, after all, god is on your side.  That's nice, but I prefer to believe that god gave us our brains for a reason: to explore and understand the world around us.  That is what science does, that is what the ToE does.  You have the conclusion that he bible is literal, and are scrambling for proof to support this.  The ToE and science in general has no such presuppositions, but instead searches conclusions to match the evidence.

BTW, huff and puff all you want, the ToE is very solidly science, and forms the backbone of most life sciences, as well as some of the earth sciences.  The evidence is overwhelming that the ToE is the correct explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.  

You asked for evidence that would demonstrate that the bible is the literal truth and that would falsify evolution.  Here you go:
1) A flood layer which would circle the entire globe, containg identical (or near to) sediments, demonstrating a common origin and time period.
2) fossils found which would be out of the expected order.  For example, in this sediment layer, I would expect to find dinosaurs with humans, pollen grains in a lower layer than primitive, non flowering plants, a modern bird right next to a pterosaur, etc, etc.
3) serious discrepancies in radiometric datings, not just anomalies obtained by improper use of the method.

Those are just a couple to start with.  That should keep you busy for the next lifetime or so.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:06 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fraudian slip

Dunno where you are from.  I am from Minnesota, USA.  It was 3 or 4 am when I was typing.

From what I can see of your posts, you want us to simply fall over and believe your right because, after all, god is on your side.

Again, this wouldn't be good science either.  How can I criticize you for laying down and and baldly (dunno if THAT was a fraudian in your post... interesting tho) accepting evolution, and then expect you to do the same to creationism.  

No - all science must be alive and changeable.  It must be moveable and not stagnent.  It must incorporate a wide range of pre-suppositions so that the interpretation of hard facts isn't skewed (as has been the case for the last century).  My point in this thread is to show that a large body of evidence exists to support creation.  No longer can the scientific community just ignore these evidences.  If progress is to be made minds must be open to ideas - regarless of whether they argree with dogma be it christian / creation dogma or evolutionary dogma.  

It does a young mind no good to tell it what to believe.  To tell it what  to think.  We have to teach it how to think.  Once we accomplish that, then true progress can be made.  Instead of teaching people how to argue and debate the legitimacy of one point of view, and teach people to think and come up with their own point of view, we can move forward.  That's never going to happen when education forces only one point of view.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:12 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

t does a young mind no good to tell it what to believe.  To tell it what  to think.  We have to teach it how to think.  Once we accomplish that, then true progress can be made.  Instead of teaching people how to argue and debate the legitimacy of one point of view, and teach people to think and come up with their own point of view, we can move forward.  That's never going to happen when education forces only one point of view.

But that is exactly what Creationists do, they want us to ignore the evidence, ignore common sense and believe in a fairytale like genesis.  The theory of evolution is still the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth, creationism was disproved over 200 years ago!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:24 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dunno where you are from.  I am from Minnesota, USA.  It was 3 or 4 am when I was typing.


You may want to look up the meaning of "Freudian slip"

The rest of your point is, once again, posturing.  You have not presented any evidence whatsoever.  All you have done is trotted out the golden oldies, all of which were refuted years ago.  

I don't know where you got the idea that science is "equal opportunity".  Evoluion is "pushed" because it is currently the only theory that adequately explains the evidence available.  It is the only theory that encompasses and is supported by all the evidence.  That's it, that's all.  There is no "humanistic conspiracy" to destroy god, there are only the facts, and the facts right now fully support the ToE

Still waiting for the mounds of evidence you keep talking about...


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:29 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

""You may want to look up the meaning of "Freudian slip" ""

I am well aware of what a freudian slip is.  My point was that I was tired and not sharp enough to catch the mistake before posting.

"Still waiting for the mounds of evidence you keep talking about..."

Well the talk origins site lists hundreds and hundreds of topics refuting creationist evidences.  If there were no evidences, why goes talk orgins give literally thousands of excuses to refute the evidence?

TrueOrigins.org, AiG, and others contain the opposite - mounds of evidences refuting evolution.

The point is, creationism is censored in schools, evolution is not.  Typically both sides have the same evidence, but the interpretation is different depending on what your religion is.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:46 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From talk origins welcome page:
The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

It says right on the page that it's purpose is to provide answers and rebuttals.  You'd rather you were free to spread your ignorance unchecked?

The point is, creationism is censored in schools, evolution is not.

So is astrology, flat earthism, geocentrism, the greek theory of the elements, etc, etc.


Typically both sides have the same evidence, but the interpretation is different depending on what your religion is.


Once again, huff and puff all you want, it doesn't make you right.  The theory of evolution is no more a religion than the theory of gravity.





-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:05 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20: The point is, creationism is censored in schools, evolution is not.

TQ: So is astrology, flat earthism, geocentrism, the greek theory of the elements, etc, etc.

TQ, am I correct in saying that you are equating creation (the belief that God created animals in six days, but that animals do change over time only within kinds), with astrology, flat earthism, geocentrism, and the Greek's theory of the elements? What a gross misrepresentation! I have called you on this several times in the past, about how creationists do not use supernatural explanations in operational science, then you bring up the flood. The problem with that rebuttal is that the flood is an ancient event, not operational science!

You make it sound as though creationists only allow supernatural explanations for operational science but you failed to differentiate between the two. Since creation was finished on the sixth day of creation, creationists look to natural laws when dealing with operational science, and would never invoke a miracle to explain operations being observed in the present as you imply in your straw man. The past however is unobservable and unrepeatable, therefore this falls under origins science which are educated guesses about unobservable past events. For instance, intelligence is needed to generate complex and coded information in the present so we can assume that this is how it was in the past. Creationists only invoke the supernatural in origins science, although this in no way means that creationists invoke the same in operational science. For example, the laws governing the operation of a computer are not those that actually created the computer in the first place. Although, your straw man implies that if we conceded that the computer had an intelligent designer in the first place, then we would not analyze the computer workings in the terms of natural laws of electron motion through semi-conductors but would assert that there are tiny intelligent “beings” pushing the electrons round and round. This is obviously a major misrepresentation of what creationists really believe.

Where is your Biblical basis for a flat earth? Its not in my Bible!

Isaiah 40:22  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

We also have evidence that the universe stretches like a curtain, particulary from Red Shifts.

Gup20: Typically both sides have the same evidence, but the interpretation is different depending on what your religion is.

TQ: Once again, huff and puff all you want, it doesn't make you right.  The theory of evolution is no more a religion than the theory of gravity.

Once again, huff and puff all you want, it doesn't make you right. The theory of evolution is more a religion than universal laws such as gravity.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 11:02 AM on April 8, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: This is ridiculous!  Why would you use C-14 dating on diamonds?  They are not organic, and they are far older than C-14 dating's 50,000 year upper limit!  Once again, here is a creationist misusing a tool and trying to say the data supports a young earth!  Commercial geologists have encountered levels of C-14 deep in the earth where they should not be, their explaination?  There are colonies of bacteria and fungi this far below the surface that accounts for the C-14.  So the readings for diamonds don't mean a young earth...

Please! Take the time to differentiate between carbon 14 and the carbon crystals are composed of. There should not be any carbon 14 in those crystals had they been millions (or billions) of years old. Moss and algea are on the exterior of the crystal, but when you crack into the inner structure to be tested, algea and moss (or other organic material) are not even a problem because they are not present. Notice how you already displayed your pressuppositious philosophies by this statement: "and they are far older than C-14 dating's 50,000 year upper limit!" Looks like someone spilled the beans here...


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 11:08 AM on April 8, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Young Earth Toad at Thu April 8, 2004 - 11:02 AM
The theory of evolution is more a religion than universal laws such as gravity.


Be assured that there is a MUCH stronger likelihood that there will be a new Theory of Gravity than any significant revision to the Theory of Evolution.

Newton's "Laws" of gravitation were replaced by Einsteins Theory of Relativity almost 100 years ago, and people are lining up to collect their Nobel prize by replacing it.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:22 PM on April 8, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please! Take the time to differentiate between carbon 14 and the carbon crystals are composed of. There should not be any carbon 14 in those crystals had they been millions (or billions) of years old.


That depends, what was the measured neutron flux  where the diamond was collected?  Nitrogen is a common contaminate of the diamond matrix, and C14 presence is readily explained by neutron capture.  A significant amount of work hase been done this area to identify oil reservoirs in formations with minimum Uranium content, since one Uranium decay mode is spontaneous fission with neutron products.  These reservoirs are identified to allow production of scintillation fluids with minimum background counts for cosmic ray and neutrino detectors.

Bottom line is that the ambient neutron flux determines the C14 background and limits it to a non-zero level.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:34 PM on April 8, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ, am I correct in saying that you are equating creation (the belief that God created animals in six days, but that animals do change over time only within kinds), with astrology, flat earthism, geocentrism, and the Greek's theory of the elements?

Yup.  
What a gross misrepresentation!

Not really
I have called you on this several times in the past, about how creationists do not use supernatural explanations in operational science

So "goddidit" isn't using supernatural explanations?
Where is your Biblical basis for a flat earth? Its not in my Bible!

Never said it was in the bible.  That doesn't change the fact that there are those who believe the earth is flat and that all this "spherical earth" nonsense is a trick by scientists invovled in a big coverup(sound familiar?)
The theory of evolution is more a religion than universal laws such as gravity.

Well, you must be right.  After all, you said it, so it must be true!

By the way, when can I expect you to post a link to this article about C14 in diamonds?  I'm still waiting... (imagine that, a creationist who doesn't provide references or sources when they are requested)

(Edited by TQ 4/8/2004 at 2:20 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 12:49 PM on April 8, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis, the neutron flux is important, but you ignore the point. It is that, inherently by age there should be absolutely no presence of 14C, but there is. It can't be explained by moss or algea, because that is only limited to the exterior, it can't be explained by the fact that the crystals are made of carbon, because the kinds are totally different. It is obviously evidence that these crystals are not as old as the uniformitarian camp is claiming.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 2:11 PM on April 8, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, when can I expect you to post a link to this article about C14 in diamonds?

So, never then...


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:21 PM on April 8, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis, the neutron flux is important, but you ignore the point. It is that, inherently by age there should be absolutely no presence of 14C, but there is.


Absolutely, totally wrong.

If there is neutron flux there will be production of C14 by neutron capture, so there will be a background level of C14 present at all times determined by the level of nitrogen, the fluence of neutrons,  and the halflife of C14.

I didn't go to that AGU meeting, even if I had, I wouldn't have seen that paper/poster as it's not in my area.  But I can tell you from personal experience of having done it, that a poster or paper at AGU is not that big of an deal.  If it has any real merit, they would submit it as a JGR article.  Since they are not and going directly to popular publication, you can bet that they aren't willing to answer the tough questions that a reviewer would ask,  just like I'm asking.

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/8/2004 at 3:29 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:28 PM on April 8, 2004 | IP
JonF

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a drive-by posting; I just stumbled across this board while doing a search.

TQ:

FYI, the poster from the AGU meeting is available at The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older than 100 Ka (a PDF document).  The diamond stuff is at the bottom just to the right of center.  Note that they did not subtract the backgound from these measurements, whereas they did subtract background from others.  Nonetheless, it does appear that there really is some 14C in those diamonds, although this certainly is no significant problem for the 14C dating method or the other methods used to establish geological ages.  Perhaps this kind of effect adds an error of a small fraction of a percent to our 14C dates of 2k0 Ka or less ... no big deal except for those that are trying to extend 14C dating beyond 50 Ka.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:13 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks, fairly obvious why this will never see publication in other than the creationist press.

Not a single word about in-situ production of C14.

Since the modern 14C/12C ratio in living things is aobut 10^-12, the AMS method can measure ratios potentially as low as about 10^-5 times (.001%) the modern ratio, or .001pmc.


Yet elsewhere we read:
. . .and then reduced by .077+/-.005pmc to about for standard background believed to be from sample processing contamination.


In other words, the background is 77 times what the technique can potentially measure.

Interestingly, if we go ahead and calibrate the diamond results, some of the results include 0 content within the error bars, and are basically just above the detection threshold.   With no discussion of potential sources of procedural error, or the magnitudes of other potential error sources, this is a pretty weak result.

The uniformitarian approach for interpreting the 14C data assumes a constant 14C production rate and a constant biospheric carbon inventory extrapolated into the indefinite past.


This is just simply false.  If it were true, then papers like the following would not have been published which calibrate 14C methods due to non-constant 14C production.

A 45.000 YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM JAPAN



(Edited by Apoapsis 4/21/2004 at 3:36 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:10 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
merfyman

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm a 17 year old high school senior on the verge of graduation and all i feel the need to say is this

* Evolution sure has a lot more proof then something (ie religion) which is to be accepted on blind faith

* The American Public Education system can only teach what is secular and that's evolution, If you want to learn some other idea, go to church yourself. Its not  tax payers that oughta teach you the bible.

* Get over your religion. A lot of people accept no religion. I don't want to be fed religion by anybody, and not by a bio teacher either.  If it bothers you so much you belong in private school. If you cant do that, deal.

sorry I sound so moronic in this post, I googled, found this thread, read it, and got all fired up. I assure you in person I'm much more intellegent then I sound right about now.

(Edited by merfyman 5/8/2005 at 11:23 PM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:20 PM on May 8, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, i'm also 17 and awaiting graduation (not too soon though - gotta wait til november in Australia!! ) and i agree with you completely.

The only problem about the school i go to is that it's a private school, so no evolution for us in biology! Our bio teachers think it's a stupid rule, and usually end up teaching it anyway (or at least mentioning it). I think this is detrimental to our education, as it is simply imposing certain religious beliefs on us when they know full well that not all of us are Christian (they tell us this all the time...). It's a real shame.

oh, btw, u don't sound half as moronic as many other people do on this board (they know who they are...) :D
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:48 AM on May 9, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

* Hi I'm the moronic 18 year old (18 today) if I had read this yesturday I could have said I'm 17 as well.

(Edited by Peter87 5/10/2005 at 11:35 AM).


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:54 AM on May 9, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Happy Birthday then!
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:49 AM on May 10, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yo.... I recommend that anyone who reads this post go ontothe Basic Mistake about Evolution thread (started by Demon) if you would like a basic but informative review of evolution. It does not explain evolution-- it only shows forms of natural selection and classification. However, it will answer some questions.

I would also like to add this: I am in my third (we work in trimesters) term of school, and this term's complete science course (for a select group of students) is completely focused on Evolution. If you have any questions on evolution, I would be happy to answer them. However-- Please do not ask me either provoking or angry questions (or even general questions, specific subjects would help), because encylopedias are difficult to anger :--).

(I'm going to copy this to a new thread, so.. umm... yeah :--P)

 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 10:27 PM on May 10, 2005 | IP
ktech

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi all. I'm currently a sophmore in  high school. In our biology class, we are doing biology projects/finals and I have chosen evolution as my topic as it is an interesting and hotly debated topic.

If anyone here is a researcher or a professor who focuses on evolution, would you mind if I asked you a few questions via email or through this board?

Thanks


-------
x
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 6:43 PM on May 13, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 5:44 PM on March 29, 2004 :
About 200 years ago, christian geologists realized that this hypothesis was simply impossible.  The earth was far older than 6,000 years, there was no evidence of a world wide flood and much evidence against it and animals had changed throughout earth's history.  Since then, all evidence has supported this conclusion, there has been no evidence found that supports a young earth.  This is why creationism is disproven.


MUCH earlier than that Augustine of Hippo (354-430AD) insisted that any interpretation of Genesis had to be done taking into account our knowledge of reality rather than a blind acceptance of Scripture.

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

The modern revival of creationism stems from the teaching of the Seventh Day Adventists especially George McCready Price who needed to shore up the teachings of that groups founder.



you say that as if it was a universal truth. Not all of them thought that way.
You fail to mention the huge resurgence of gradualism in the last 30 years. The many cases where gradualism and uniformitarianism have been debunked.
The Missoula Flood, the Icelandic Mega Floods, Surtsey Island , the many fallacies of the Lawyer Lyeles such as the age of Niagra Falls.
You are getting your ideas from outdated textbooks that were wrong in the first place.

In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out (see my column of October, 1974). To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.    Natural History February 1975 pp.16-17

How do you explain the sea creature fossils on top of the Andes , the Appalachians , The Rockies , The Alps , The Himalaya's etc. Birds?
Clumsy fossil collectors?







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 7:19 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Show evidence explaining about the fossils on moutains. Even if they do exist when were the "sea creature" fossils dated? 5,000 years ago I'm sure >.<...
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 8:33 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you explain the sea creature fossils on top of the Andes , the Appalachians , The Rockies , The Alps , The Himalaya's etc.
Birds?


No mystery here, sea creature fossils found on the tops of mountains are there because at one time the tops of mountains were at the bottoms of seas and oceans.  This is a known fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:47 AM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 7:19 PM on May 27, 2005 :
How do you explain the sea creature fossils on top of the Andes , the Appalachians , The Rockies , The Alps , The Himalaya's etc. Birds?
Clumsy fossil collectors?


No, we can measure how fast the Indian Plate is moving in it's collision with the Eurasian plate, and how fast the Himalayas are rising as a result.  Tectonic plate motion is easily measureable with today's technology.



GPS Time Series


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:50 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 5:44 PM on March 29, 2004 :
About 200 years ago, christian geologists realized that this hypothesis was simply impossible.  The earth was far older than 6,000 years, there was no evidence of a world wide flood and much evidence against it and animals had changed throughout earth's history.  Since then, all evidence has supported this conclusion, there has been no evidence found that supports a young earth.  This is why creationism is disproven.


MUCH earlier than that Augustine of Hippo (354-430AD) insisted that any interpretation of Genesis had to be done taking into account our knowledge of reality rather than a blind acceptance of Scripture.

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

The modern revival of creationism stems from the teaching of the Seventh Day Adventists especially George McCready Price who needed to shore up the teachings of that groups founder.




[b]
You seem to disagree with Gould completely:

"The late Stephen Jay Gould, sometime Head of the Department of Geology at Harvard University, was even more critical of Lyell's approach:

"Lyell relied heavily upon two bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology.  First, he set up a straw man to demolish. ... The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes; rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out.  To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence.  The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see.  The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists. Natural History February 1975 pp.16-17"

No evidence that supports a young earth? That is an intellectually dishonst statement. Just because you interpret evidence with the materialism as an absolute does not make the other interoretation invalid. For instance. The comet problem. Long agers have come up with story after story to explain hoe comets are replaced. None of them have any teeth. The latest one, the trans-plutonian bodies are not consistent with comets. A new theory is being developed. Saying that the short life of comets is not consistent with a very old earth, 6 to 10ka is simply not true. Making up stories is not proof.

Gould did not believe in a worldwide flood per say but there is evidence of catastrophe. The Missoula Flood was a creationist myth not long ago, now it is an accepted scientific fact. Just because you don't believe that Noah's Flood occured does not mean there is no evidence consistent with it.

As far as your blanket statement that animals have changed and this means the bible is a pack of lies I find that to be intellectually dishonest as well. What your are saying is that animals changed in to other kinds of animals. That is an extrapolation of the observed evidence not evidence itself. The only observable evidence supports the Biblical definition of kinds. Cats have cats and dogs have dogs. The only "evidence" of trans-mutation is the theory of evolution. A theory proving a theory is evidence of circular reasoning , that is all.

"
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)"

All evidence has supported this position? That is a strange thing to say . In order for this to be true there would have to be universal agreement as to the interpretation of the evidence. Are you claiming this?
For example:
"The famous zoologist Pierre Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences, makes his point about the logic of "chance", which is the backbone of Darwinism:

The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it"

What one finds is many scientist believe in evolution in spite of the evidence.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)"

This is a nobel prize winner making this statement. It is not a misquote, he really feels this way as do many.

It an intellectually dishonest statement to say all evidence supports evolution. You can claim it is all consistent with it. Lot's of people interpret the evidence as consistent with special creation..

You quoted:
]Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books"

What you are saying is people who believe the Bible is true are stupid , and therefore you are superior. What you quoted is no different in meaning than this statement:
Richard Dawkins

“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." He goes on to explain that “I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true."


"Augustine of Hippo (354-430AD) insisted that any interpretation of Genesis had to be done taking into account our knowledge of reality rather than a blind acceptance of Scripture."

I find this humorous as evolutionist tell me i am quoting other evolutionist from ancient , 30 years ago. At least you can't say that on this post, or maybe you will.

Was Robert Boyles a Seventh Day Adventist? The Father of Modern Chemistry was a creationist but he died on December 30, 1691. The Seventh Day Adventist were founded May 21, 1863.
You really should resarch your facts. Of course facts seem to be such a nuisance to evolutionist why bother with them at all.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 07:37 AM on June 17, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you concede that we can measure tectonic plate drift rates.

We're making progress. :-)


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:33 AM on June 17, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No evidence that supports a young earth? That is an intellectually dishonst statement.

Not in the least!  There is no valid evidence for a young earth and an avalanche of evidence that falsifies it!  

Just because you interpret evidence with the materialism as an absolute does not make the other interoretation invalid.

But science can ONLY examine the material world.  So it does not make any other interpretaion invalid, but it certainly makes it unscientific.

For instance. The comet problem. Long agers have come up with story after story to explain hoe comets are replaced. None of them have any teeth.

What?!?!There is no "comet problem" for science.  There is for Creationism.  Comets are replaced.  What are the problems with the Kupier belt?  It's actually observed, it contains 100's of thousands of objects.  What about the Oort cloud?  No, there is no "comet problem".

Gould did not believe in a worldwide flood per say but there is evidence of catastrophe. The Missoula Flood was a creationist myth not long ago, now it is an accepted scientific fact. Just because you don't believe that Noah's Flood occured does not mean there is no evidence consistent with it.

Still trying to equate the Missoula flood with a world wide flood?!?!  No comparison!  World wide flood is impossible.  The Missoula flood is backed up by evidence collected and explained by real geologists.  The story of Naoh's ark is impossible.

As far as your blanket statement that animals have changed and this means the bible is a pack of lies I find that to be intellectually dishonest as well. What your are saying is that animals changed in to other kinds of animals. That is an extrapolation of the observed evidence not evidence itself. The only observable evidence supports the Biblical definition of kinds. Cats have cats and dogs have dogs. The only "evidence" of trans-mutation is the theory of evolution. A theory proving a theory is evidence of circular reasoning , that is all.

Nonsense, the observed evidence of evolution is the fossil record, filled with transitional fossils.  Of living transitional organisms like the platypus and lung fish.  Genetic evidence makes it clear, all life is interrelated and descended from a common ancestor.  So no, it's not the theory proving the theory, as it always is in science, it's the evidence proving the theory.

Dr Gary Parker ...

Parker is one man and a creationist, his claims about the missing links are wrong, he doesn't try to explain the "found links" which shouldn't exist at all if creation were true.  He doesn't seem to understand how fossilizationj works, no, we can ignore his comments, they're not scientifically accurate.

All evidence has supported this position? That is a strange thing to say . In order for this to be true there would have to be universal agreement as to the interpretation of the evidence. Are you claiming this?


As far as biologists go, yes, 99.8% of the biologists in America accept evolution.  The percentage is higher in other industrialized nations.  America has a problem with creationism and it's costing us dearly.

The famous zoologist Pierre Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences, makes his point about the logic of "chance", which is the backbone of Darwinism:

Grasse' is 30 years out of date and wrong.

Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University

And yet, despite what this one man says, the consensus of the the scientific world disagrees with him.  He has no valid arguments, just religious faith.

This is a nobel prize winner making this statement.

So what?  His information of abiogenesis is out of date.  And he's not talking about evoltuion, as you dishonestly claim, he's talking about abiogenesis, 2 completely differetn things.

It an intellectually dishonest statement to say all evidence supports evolution. You can claim it is all consistent with it. Lot's of people interpret the evidence as consistent with special creation..

Lots of people are wrong.  Evolution is an observed fact, macroevolution is an observed fact, the theory of evolution is the best explaination for this fact.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:27 AM on June 18, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.