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
     why i belive
       i have done some research...

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am a Chrisitian.  Or, to use the secular humanisits/ liberal christian terminology,  "fundamentalist".  I have found that the entire theory of evolution, and all its supporting evidence are based on one idea.  Uniformitarianism.  The idea that the processes happening today on Earth have always happened, and at around the same rate.  The is used to prove gradual plate movements, erosion rates, and most important of all, radiometric dating.  Althoug there is little evidence (yet!!), consider this:  if the rate of radioactive decay has itself been falling expoentially, how would that skew our dating methods.  4~6 thousand years ago, U-235 may have had a half like of 3 weeks, or even less.  This would explain why many old fossils/rocks give different dates on different methods, or even the same method on different samples.  Likewise, the movement of plates over the mantle has been proven by science to have been slowing even over the few decades we've been observing it.  This slowing may not be linear as teh evolutionists want to believe, but exponetial.  During the Flood, God recreated the Earth, shifitng everything around at a very fast rate.  This explains the obviousness of Pangea, but still supports Creationism!!!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:25 PM on November 17, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Yes, some processes like radioactive decay can be measured and all the evidence indicates that these rates of decay have always been the same.  From an article called
"Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019

"Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
The last three points deserve more attention. Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last hundred years, which is already 5% of the way back to the time of Christ.
Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope. Because God's universe is so large, images from distant events take a long time to get to us. Telescopes allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth. So the events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. And what do we see when we look back in time? Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives.

Some individuals have suggested that the speed of light must have been different in the past, and that the starlight has not really taken so long to reach us. However, the astronomical evidence mentioned above also suggests that the speed of light has not changed, or else we would see a significant apparent change in the half-lives of these ancient radioactive decays."

So all the evidence, all our observations, all of science, supports radiometric dating.  Your asserions that radioactive decay rates have been changing are nothing more than desperate wishing with absolutely no evidence to back it up and much evidence to falsify it.  


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:23 PM on November 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think your name has already discredited you "demon38". It is obvious that something is held agianst the Most High God in your heart and will send you to hell if you do not repent. You have also looked stupid trying to dispute facts previously in the topic about the FLOOD. You, are someone God cared about, and this is how you act in return?

Much love, Benjamin

                   bensaved2001@hotmail.com
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:05 AM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see, you can't argue the facts, so you resort to name calling.  You can't compete with me in debating the flood because all the evidence is against you, so you call me stupid.  You are really getting desperate and demonstrating just how shakey your "faith" really is!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:52 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I called the arguements put forth stupid. By saying that you "looked stupid" by being the delivery boy of such foolish ideas. I did not call you stupid.


             bensaved2001@hotmail.com
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:42 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But why are the arguements stupid?  There is no evidence for a world wide flood!  If you want to call them stupid, present your evidence.  Until you do you're just spouting off superstitious nonsense.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:23 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
EmotionxSickness

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually I do believe that they have found evidence of a world wide flood, and they even think that they found the Arc of Noah
~Emotion
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 5:06 PM on December 11, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually I do believe that they have found evidence of a world wide flood, and they even think that they found the Arc of Noah
~Emotion


There is no evidence what so ever that a global flood ever occurred on earth.  The most you will find is evidence of large continental floods---none of which fit any time frame allowable for the myth of Noah to be literaly true.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 5:48 PM on December 11, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am a Chrisitian.  Or, to use the secular humanisits/ liberal christian terminology,  "fundamentalist".


You're a very small minority in a world full of billions of "non-fundamentalist" Christians who accept both God and Evolution.

I have found that the entire theory of evolution, and all its supporting evidence are based on one idea.  Uniformitarianism.  The idea that the processes happening today on Earth have always happened, and at around the same rate.  


Your conclusion astounds me. Very sharp indeed.  I never would have thought that based on every conceivable trait of chemistry we observe that everything would seem to work the same way all the time. Seriously... What are you suggesting? After all, you never know. Sure, Helium doesn't transform into microscopic porcupines now, but it could have in the past.

Althoug there is little evidence (yet!!), consider this:  if the rate of radioactive decay has itself been falling expoentially, how would that skew our dating methods.  4~6 thousand years ago, U-235 may have had a half like of 3 weeks, or even less.


No. Our measurements of Uranium-235’s decay rates are not 99.9996% off. On a side note, if Uranium (an element that’s very hostile to life) was in such quantity 5000 years ago, that there would still be measurable amounts left to this day, there would have been more than enough to completely kill every living thing on this planet off.

This would explain why many old fossils/rocks give different dates on different methods, or even the same method on different samples.


I see you’ve done research and cited these examples. …

 Likewise, the movement of plates over the mantle has been proven by science to have been slowing even over the few decades we've been observing it.  This slowing may not be linear as teh evolutionists want to believe, but exponetial.


In other words, the brightest people alive today got not only radiometric dating, but plate tectonics backwards too?

 During the Flood, God recreated the Earth, shifitng everything around at a very fast rate.


Where in the Bible does it say God recreated the Earth? Since the obvious answer to my question is that the Bible doesn’t say this, from what verse do you draw that ridiculous assumption?

This explains the obviousness of Pangea, but still supports Creationism!!!


That really makes no sense. No matter your beliefs on anything, you need to put a lot more time into your arguments if you want people to continue to read them. You might as well just spam the board with smiley faces if all you’re going to do is put your incensed bawling on a computer screen and refuse to back anything you say up.

I think your name has already discredited you "demon38".


You’ve already discredited both yourself and your argument with such a laughable attempt at ad-hominous drivel. Since Demon38 is the one with the name, and it’s he who chose it, I can’t defend him to the last match stick, but there are several far more reasonable reasons to have “Demon” as a screen name than, “hating God.” Among them are:

1.) Demons are ferocious, and almost all illustrations of them depict monstrous creatures with large, razor teeth and claws. I don’t know any male in the world who can say demons don’t look cool.

2.) A mocking paradox? Did you ever stop to think arguing against his username in such a silly manner is what Demon38 wants people like you to do?

It is obvious that something is held agianst the Most High God in your heart and will send you to hell if you do not repent.


No, it really isn’t…

You have also looked stupid trying to dispute facts previously in the topic about the FLOOD.


Flood facts? Facts pertaining to the Great Flood? An oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one.

You, are someone God cared about, and this is how you act in return?


Wow. Call 911 and accuse Demon38 of murder while you’re at it.

actually I do believe that they have found evidence of a world wide flood, and they even think that they found the Arc of Noah
~Emotion


Petty assertion. Prove it.

I called the arguements put forth stupid. By saying that you "looked stupid" by being the delivery boy of such foolish ideas. I did not call you stupid.


You did say Demon38 hates God. Are you submitting that to hate God is not stupid?


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/11/2005 at 10:50 PM).

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/11/2005 at 10:52 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:47 PM on December 11, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually I do believe that they have found evidence of a world wide flood, and they even think that they found the Arc of Noah

No, "they" (who ever they are) haven't.  There is too much evidence showing us a world wide flood never occurred and could not possibly have occurred and no one has found Noah's ark or any evidence supporting it's existance.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:29 AM on December 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you are referring to the "ship-like" shape on the side of mount Ararat, nothing has been determined.  Turkey won't let anyone go up there anymore and the best pictures so far are inconclusive.  Personally, I think the chances that it was left intact after such a flood (remember, he's way up on the mountain) with little wood to get to (anyone need a fire?) is highly unlikely.  Two cents.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:06 AM on December 12, 2005 | IP
MickG

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

If lack of evidence proves it never happened then everything that has lack of evidence is untrue. Nobody has yet found evidence that living organisms can come from lifeless material all by itself therefore using the same reasoning, it didn't.

No evidence for a world-wide covering of water? Not even the fact that sedimentary rock is laid down by water or wind and is found world-wide? 8/10 of the earth's crust is sedimentary and the rest is metamorphic or igneous. Both come from under the crust. All the sites I have been to that talk about evolution and sedimentary rock say it was made by water movements. None suggest that the fish fossils found on dry land were blown there.

Fact: sedimentary rock is made by water or wind coming and going.

Fact: the earth is covered in sedimentary rock.

Fact: fish and other sealife have been found in sedimentary rock on dry land

Fact: sediments several feet thick can be made by one flood

Conclusion: It is at least possible that the earth has been covered all over in water.

Task: prove that all the sediments were left by wind.

Fact: Louis Pasteur sterilised some nutritious liquids by boiling. He sealed the sterile liquid from the air. No life started in it. He then broke the seal and micro-organisms began to grow.

Fact: canned food only goes bad after being unsealed

Conclusion: life does not start all by itself in lifeless matter.

Task: prove that life can start in lifeless matter all by itself and you have proof that self-driven evolution is possible.



 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 07:31 AM on December 21, 2005 | IP
MickG

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



There is too much evidence showing us a world wide flood never occurred and could not possibly have occurred and no one has found Noah's ark or any evidence supporting it's existance.


And this evidence is?


 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 08:45 AM on December 21, 2005 | IP
MickG

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

]Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 10:47 PM on December 11, 2005 :You're a very small minority in a world full of billions of "non-fundamentalist" Christians who accept both God and Evolution.


Where's your research data? Be scientific and do a full survey with different sample groupsthen you won't look like you argue from assumption.

(Edited by MickG 12/21/2005 at 09:02 AM).
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 08:52 AM on December 21, 2005 | IP
MickG

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 10:47 PM on December 11, 2005 :
I am a Chrisitian.  Or, to use the secular humanisits/ liberal christian terminology,  "fundamentalist".




You did say Demon38 hates God. Are you submitting that to hate God is not stupid?


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/11/2005 at 10:50 PM).

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/11/2005 at 10:52 PM).



Are you submitting that to hate somebody you don't even believe in is a sign of intelligence?

You also say "In other words, the brightest people alive today got not only radiometric dating, but plate tectonics backwards too?"

Here we have another assumption: evolutionists are more intelligent than everybody else. Observation by scientists studying techtonics has shown evolutionists to be mistaken and the conclusion is that techtonic experts are less intelligent than evolutionists!

If hating somebody you don't even believe in and believing in evolution are signs of intelligence, Mensa really do need to change their IQ tests. Surely there is no longer any need to study children's progress by any kind of scientific intelligence test. All you need to say is "Do you hate somebody you don't believe exists?" If the child says something like "Yes, I hate my brother even though I don't have one" you have a genius!

By the way, many wrong beliefs have come from the best scientists of their day. Double decker buses were first built without roofs because the experts reckoned they would blow over in the wind if they did had roofs.

(Edited by MickG 12/21/2005 at 09:33 AM).

(Edited by MickG 12/21/2005 at 09:34 AM).
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 09:05 AM on December 21, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Me:  There is too much evidence showing us a world wide flood never occurred and could not possibly have occurred and no one has found Noah's ark or any evidence supporting it's existance.

You: And this evidence is?

Me: I appologize.  I should have said:  There is no scientific evidence that I know of that supports a global flood ever occurring on Earth.  I have researched most of the "scientific"  claims  that creationist sites have forwarded in support of the Noachian flood and I have found them all to be scientifically invalid.

Perhaps you know of some information that  you think might change my mind? If this is the case then by all means post a link.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:56 AM on December 21, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No evidence for a world-wide covering of water? Not even the fact that sedimentary rock is laid down by water or wind and is found world-wide? 8/10 of the earth's crust is sedimentary and the rest is metamorphic or igneous. Both come from under the crust. All the sites I have been to that talk about evolution and sedimentary rock say it was made by water movements. None suggest that the fish fossils found on dry land were blown there.


::roars with laughter:: Who’s saying fossils were blown around by the wind?

Fact: sedimentary rock is made by water or wind coming and going.

Fact: the earth is covered in sedimentary rock.

Fact: fish and other sealife have been found in sedimentary rock on dry land

Fact: sediments several feet thick can be made by one flood

Conclusion: It is at least possible that the earth has been covered all over in water.


Fact: There are sedimentary composites and fossils on the top of Mount Everest. …Meaning that if a world-wide flood occurred, there had to have been enough water to reach the top of the world’s highest peak.

Fact: There isn’t enough water to reach Mount Everest, even if the entire atmosphere condensed and all the glaciers melted.

Fact: It is impossible that the world was all covered in water at one single point in time.

Conclusion: Different parts of the earth were covered with water at different times, enabling, over billions of years, all parts of the crust to be submerged at the whim of tectonic plate movements. Did you seriously not think of this?

If lack of evidence proves it never happened then everything that has lack of evidence is untrue. Nobody has yet found evidence that living organisms can come from lifeless material all by itself therefore using the same reasoning, it didn't.


Abiogenesis is not a theory, like, say, Evolution or Gravity. It’s merely an explanation—and one of many, I might add. But, to this argument, it’s totally irrelevant. It does not matter how life got here. There evidence that it changed over time is present and far more than substantial.

...Though I’d like to tell you how proud we all are of you that you’ve uncovered the secret of “The Burden of Proof.” Did you have to flip through a First-year Law School textbook, or did you actually come to this common-sense rule by yourself?

Conclusion: life does not start all by itself in lifeless matter.


It’s troubling that you deliberately choose to leave out the other components of what scientists believe helped start life, among them the necessary chemical materials and sources of energy like lightning. Nevertheless, your plight with Abiogenesis doesn’t amount to anything, because your whole idea is false in the first place. No, something is not “impossible” if it lacks evidence. Like the Great Flood, however, it’s impossible when not only is there no evidence for it, but the plethora of evidence against it is just so overwhelming…

Task: prove that life can start in lifeless matter all by itself and you have proof that self-driven evolution is possible.


Wrong. Again:

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution
Evolution = Scientific Fact and Theory
Abiogenesis = Scientific Hypothesis
f(Abiogenesis) =/= Evolution

Do I need to go further with the basic logic? Abiogenesis and Evolution different ideas!

There is too much evidence showing us a world wide flood never occurred and could not possibly have occurred and no one has found Noah's ark or any evidence supporting it's existance.


And this evidence is?


Here: The Whole Silly Flood Story

Not a very professionally-written article if I say so myself, but the points are nevertheless valid ones.

Where's your research data? Be scientific and do a full survey with different sample groupsthen you won't look like you argue from assumption.


No. Beyond the fact that such a thing just isn’t possible (and you are of course well aware of that), I shouldn’t need to. The Catholic Church comprises over one billion people, tipping the tables against your favor in the blink of an eye.

Fact: The Catholic Church endorses Evolution and teaches it in their private schools.

Whether you’ll reveal yourself to be the typical fundamentalist and try to tell us that Catholics aren’t actually Christians is for time to decide. However, assuming you do, it only assists my argument. I repeat: Christian Fundamentalism is a minority.

Are you submitting that to hate somebody you don't even believe in is a sign of intelligence?


Nope. To my knowledge, no one on this board hates God nor the idea of a god.

Here we have another assumption: evolutionists are more intelligent than everybody else. Observation by scientists studying techtonics has shown evolutionists to be mistaken and the conclusion is that techtonic experts are less intelligent than evolutionists!


You’re not making any sense. I didn’t say Evolutionists were more intelligent than anybody. But since there isn’t a single scientific field—geology included—that asserts against Evolution, it’s easy to say outright that the scientists gathering the data are intelligent enough to interpret it.

If hating somebody you don't even believe in and believing in evolution are signs of intelligence, Mensa really do need to change their IQ tests. Surely there is no longer any need to study children's progress by any kind of scientific intelligence test. All you need to say is "Do you hate somebody you don't believe exists?" If the child says something like "Yes, I hate my brother even though I don't have one" you have a genius!


To add to that: Blah blah blah. I didn’t follow any of what you just said. Keep punching the air and biting the water if you insist, though.

By the way, many wrong beliefs have come from the best scientists of their day. Double decker buses were first built without roofs because the experts reckoned they would blow over in the wind if they did had roofs.


Precisely. The very wonder of science is that everything has the potential to be proven wrong. The contrasting dogma of religious fundamentalism and the refusal to pivot beliefs whatsoever is what conflicts.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/23/2005 at 1:10 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:31 PM on December 21, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Conclusion: Different parts of the earth were covered with water at different times, enabling, over billions of years, all parts of the crust to be submerged at the whim of tectonic plate movements. Did you seriously not think of this?

Actually, that is a very good point.  I'd never really taken into account tectonic plate movement before.   Once those are factored in then the ability for a world-wide flood becomes much easier to understand as not all mountains would have necessarily been as high as they are now, decreasing the amount of water needed.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:11 PM on December 21, 2005 | IP
MickG

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fredguff at 10:56 AM on December 21, 2005 :

Me: I appologize.  I should have said:  There is no scientific evidence that I know of that supports a global flood ever occurring on Earth.  I have researched most of the "scientific"  claims  that creationist sites have forwarded in support of the Noachian flood and I have found them all to be scientifically invalid.

Perhaps you know of some information that  you think might change my mind? If this is the case then by all means post a link.



I got the idea of world-wide sediments from a geology site (www.uh.edu/~jbutler/physical/chapter7.html). I suggest you tell them that their claims are invalid.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 05:03 AM on December 22, 2005 | IP
MickG

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 9:31 PM on December 21, 2005 :

::roars with laughter:: Who’s saying fossils were blown around by the wind?


Thank you for confirming that the fish fossils found on land were left there by water as it went away.




Fact: There are sedimentary composites and fossils on the top of Mount Everest. …Meaning that if a world-wide flood occurred, there had to have been enough water to reach the top of the world’s highest peak.



I thought you knew about tectonics. You know, the idea that mountains are still being pushed higher.

Conclusion: Different parts of the earth were covered with water at different times, enabling, over billions of years, all parts of the crust to be submerged at the whim of tectonic plate movements. Did you seriously not think of this?


Yes I did which is why I said POSSIBLE. By the way, your 'conclusion' is actually an assumption.

(Edited by MickG 12/22/2005 at 05:33 AM).

(Edited by MickG 12/22/2005 at 05:35 AM).
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 05:29 AM on December 22, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I got the idea of world-wide sediments from a geology site (www.uh.edu/~jbutler/physical/chapter7.html). I suggest you tell them that their claims are invalid.


Uhm...I already know that floods  have occured all over the world at different times.  You still have not presented evidence that confirms or even suggests there ever was a  global flood that covered the entire earth at one time.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 05:33 AM on December 22, 2005 | IP
MickG

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fredguff at 05:33 AM on December 22, 2005 :
I got the idea of world-wide sediments from a geology site (www.uh.edu/~jbutler/physical/chapter7.html). I suggest you tell them that their claims are invalid.


Uhm...I already know that floods  have occured all over the world at different times.  You still have not presented evidence that confirms or even suggests there ever was a  global flood that covered the entire earth at one time.



Neither have you proven the opposite.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 05:36 AM on December 22, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

>>Neither have you proven the opposite.<<

Uhm....Let's try again...My claim is:

There is no scientific evidence that I know of that supports a global flood ever occurring on Earth.  I have researched most of the "scientific"  claims  that creationist sites have forwarded in support of the Noachian flood and I have found them all to be scientifically invalid.

Now since my claim relates to my own personal experience I have nothing to prove.   But...I have left open the possibility that I may have missed some scientific evidence that might be out there.  If you know of such evidence please present it.

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 06:10 AM on December 22, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, that is a very good point.  I'd never really taken into account tectonic plate movement before.   Once those are factored in then the ability for a world-wide flood becomes much easier to understand as not all mountains would have necessarily been as high as they are now, decreasing the amount of water needed.


No. Mountains do not rise tens of thousands of feet in a handful of thousands of years.

Thank you for confirming that the fish fossils found on land were left there by water as it went away.


You're welcome. I'm glad to see you now understand that this supports an old earth.

I thought you knew about tectonics. You know, the idea that mountains are still being pushed higher.


Of course. Plate tectonics move, you do realize, slower than your fingernail kartinizes and grows. It is not possible that any mountains thousands of feet high were formed in the last 5-10,000 years.

Yes I did which is why I said POSSIBLE. By the way, your 'conclusion' is actually an assumption.


Congradulations. You've made yet another breakthrough and discovered what we call the Scientific Process.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:14 AM on December 22, 2005 | IP
MickG

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fredguff at 06:10 AM on December 22, 2005 :
>>Neither have you proven the opposite.<<

Uhm....Let's try again...My claim is:

There is no scientific evidence that I know of that supports a global flood ever occurring on Earth.  I have researched most of the "scientific"  claims  that creationist sites have forwarded in support of the Noachian flood and I have found them all to be scientifically invalid.

Now since my claim relates to my own personal experience I have nothing to prove.   But...I have left open the possibility that I may have missed some scientific evidence that might be out there.  If you know of such evidence please present it.




Forgive my skepticism and slow reply. Most evolution arguers mistake assumption for proof and I didn't read your posting thoroughly in my wish to avoid taking in more skwit than I needed to. I've found that evolutionists say "No it doesn't", "No it didn't" without seemingly any thought and fail to back their claims up with any supporting evidence. When pressed, they tend to get abusive, hence my defenses. It seems the rule is "if it agrees with evolution, believe it without question. If it disagrees, dismiss it without thought." That is blind faith. I can say that because I used to be like that. No doubt I will get abuse for saying that.

No, I cannot prove all land masses were unde water at one time. I was merely saying how it could have been possible. Tectonics show how mountains were lower and valleys were shallower meaning that less water would have been needed to cover them.

Radiodating methods are, by scientists' admission, unreliable and impossible to verify beyond a few thousand years so can you show that the layers were made at different times by purely scientific methods? Ok, you can date layers by the fossils in them but the fossils are dated by the layers they are in.

Can you explain how the sterile prebiotic soup turned into living organisms. Scientists today can't make a cell or bring life to a dead one so can you explain it only using scientific observation?

An obvious objection to a flood (on scientific not anti-christian grounds) is the length of time it takes to make things like the Grand Canyon. Geologist Guy Bertault published his belief that the Canyon could have happened much quicker than assumed. He was roundly criticised and accused of creationist bias. His reply to that is on http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/berthaul/berthaul.html where he stresses that he is not a creationist.

Here is a cut & paste from another site -

Could the 800km long and 500m high TONTO GROUP in the Grand Canyon have taken just weeks to form, rather than the 70 million years ascribed to it ?

Answer  


Most certainly, as could other geological formations, given a sufficiently strong erosive current.

http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/

Given that enough water could cut the Grand Canyon in weeks, can you be absolutely sure that it had to take millions of years?

Given the Pangea theory which shows how the surface area of dry land was much smaller than it is now, that scientists are forever finding mistakes in their conclusions (check out Nebraska Man) and that we could be wrong about millions of years for erosion, can we be sure that no world-wide flood happened at any time? Purely by science I mean, not after throwing in religious prejudice? (That last question is bound to make somebody get angry).

Another thought that gets the pants in a pandemonium: natural history and the bible both talk about snakes having legs at one time but not any more.

The extremists of both sides behave the same way. Both hang onto their unfounded believes with venom but there is a good overlap when you look at what the other side says. When you look at what your own side says for that matter. Both extremes argue their point without actually knowing what the data is from either side.

There, I've had my say. Agree with me or hang me in public but at least think about it before you do either. I'm beyond disillusionment with extremists who claim to be open minded so I doubt I will be back.


 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 5:57 PM on December 23, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Forgive my skepticism and slow reply. Most evolution arguers mistake assumption for proof and I didn't read your posting thoroughly in my wish to avoid taking in more skwit than I needed to. I've found that evolutionists say "No it doesn't", "No it didn't" without seemingly any thought and fail to back their claims up with any supporting evidence. When pressed, they tend to get abusive, hence my defenses. It seems the rule is "if it agrees with evolution, believe it without question. If it disagrees, dismiss it without thought." That is blind faith. I can say that because I used to be like that. No doubt I will get abuse for saying that.


You start your reply out with unfounded and irrelevant stereotypes…

No, I cannot prove all land masses were unde water at one time. I was merely saying how it could have been possible.


Under 10,000 years ago? Nope. Not possible. Perhaps when the earth was a flat, desolate ball of molten rock, the crust wouldn’t be thousands of feet above sea level, but otherwise, it’s just common sense. There isn’t enough water. It is not possible.

Tectonics show how mountains were lower and valleys were shallower meaning that less water would have been needed to cover them.


Wait. You omitted the fact that tectonics also show that many areas that are flat today were once very mountainous. The Appalachian mountains, for instance, were originally connected to the mountainous formations in Scandinavia. Then along came the water and the wind, and they’ve been eroded over the tens of millions of years.

Radiodating methods are, by scientists' admission, unreliable and impossible to verify beyond a few thousand years


First off, who’s admitting that?

Second, you’re only right when it comes to Carbon-14. Uranium-275, on the other hand, has a half-life of not merely 5,000 years, but over 5 billion.

so can you show that the layers were made at different times by purely scientific methods? Ok, you can date layers by the fossils in them but the fossils are dated by the layers they are in.


Incorrect. Uranium-275 is used to date the rock—accurately, too. Carbon-14 is the element used to determine the age of organic materials like fossils.

Can you explain how the sterile prebiotic soup turned into living organisms. Scientists today can't make a cell or bring life to a dead one so can you explain it only using scientific observation?


You don’t actually read my responses, do you? Is this just a constant stream of drivel you randomly decided to write when you had spare time? You completely overlooked my explanation of this. For the second time:

Wrong. Again:

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution
Evolution = Scientific Fact and Theory
Abiogenesis = Scientific Hypothesis
f(Abiogenesis) =/= Evolution

Do I need to go further with the basic logic? Abiogenesis and Evolution different ideas!


An obvious objection to a flood (on scientific not anti-christian grounds) is the length of time it takes to make things like the Grand Canyon.


Sorry… I don’t see how that’s an objection to the Great Flood at all.

Most certainly, as could other geological formations, given a sufficiently strong erosive current.

http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/

Given that enough water could cut the Grand Canyon in weeks, can you be absolutely sure that it had to take millions of years?


Of course. There not that much water pressure on the crust of the earth anywhere. Even if all the glaciers were to melt instantaneously, you wouldn’t be able to create a river that moves fast enough in a thin-enough line to cut a canyon out in several weeks—not even in years, or centuries, for that matter. The answer from that website you provided is right… but only on the hypothetical side. Note that it says “Given that enough water.” Well, sorry, but for what must be the fourth time on this matter: there isn’t enough water.

Given the Pangea theory which shows how the surface area of dry land was much smaller than it is now


That’s not even true. The only real missing landmass is that of southern India and South-east Asia when you actually look at the continent of Pangaea. Second, it wouldn’t matter if there was less above-water landmass, because the ground doesn’t disappear. There’s earthen crust under the water too, you realize. Now certainly you’ve heard of Water Displacement…

that scientists are forever finding mistakes in their conclusions (check out Nebraska Man)


That wasn’t a mistake in the conclusion. It was a mistake in the evidence. The evidence turned out to be faulty, not the conclusion. Nebraska Man’s absence as evidence for Evolution by no means shuts down the Theory. Try again.

and that we could be wrong about millions of years for erosion


You must mean billions.

can we be sure that no world-wide flood happened at any time?


Well, no, actually. I have to retract one of my statements from an above post. It’s possible that at the very beginning, when Earth’s crust had not hardened yet, that the water could over-flow everything… but no life would have been present by then. Such a flood would have had to have occurred more than 2.5 billion years ago, completely negating any mention of Noah.

Purely by science I mean, not after throwing in religious prejudice? (That last question is bound to make somebody get angry).


It might… if your point was half-coherent.

Another thought that gets the pants in a pandemonium: natural history and the bible both talk about snakes having legs at one time but not any more.


That’s right. Just mentioning the part about snakes with legs makes my head threaten to explode off my shoulders. …Not.

The extremists of both sides behave the same way. Both hang onto their unfounded believes with venom but there is a good overlap when you look at what the other side says. When you look at what your own side says for that matter. Both extremes argue their point without actually knowing what the data is from either side.

There, I've had my say. Agree with me or hang me in public but at least think about it before you do either. I'm beyond disillusionment with extremists who claim to be open minded so I doubt I will be back.


Auf wiedersehen. Your see-through logical fallacies and deliberate misinterpretations of facts won’t be missed.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/23/2005 at 6:44 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:44 PM on December 23, 2005 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 11:23 PM on November 17, 2003 :
Yes, some processes like radioactive decay can be measured and all the evidence indicates that these rates of decay have always been the same.  From an article called
"Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019



So all the evidence, all our observations, all of science, supports radiometric dating.  Your asserions that radioactive decay rates have been changing are nothing more than desperate wishing with absolutely no evidence to back it up and much evidence to falsify it.  





In that case, how do we know what you say is true and not 'nothing more than desperate wishing with absolutely no evidence to back it up and much evidence to falsify it?' After all, you've hardly shown yourself to be unbiased, have you?
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:53 PM on December 24, 2005 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 6:44 PM on December 23, 2005 :
Perhaps when the earth was a flat, desolate ball of molten rock(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/23/2005 at 6:44 PM).



Ok now prove the Earth was a flat ball ;)




(Edited by Nuno 12/24/2005 at 8:20 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 7:05 PM on December 24, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why? I'm saying the earth wasn't necessarily flat...


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:22 PM on December 24, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In that case, how do we know what you say is true and not 'nothing more than desperate wishing with absolutely no evidence to back it up and much evidence to falsify it?' After all, you've hardly shown yourself to be unbiased, have you?

How do we know radio dating is accurate and
not 'nothing more than desperate wishing with absolutely no evidence to back it up and much evidence to falsify it'?  Because 100's of thousands of tests have been done, decay rates have been compared, dating done on different isotopes have yielded complimentry results.  All you have to do is study the data, have you done this, have you been able to find any flaws in the data?  What reason do you have to doubt the results that have been checked, double checked, rechecked, 1000's of times?  Better yet, why don't you do the tests yourself and explain the data yourself...If you can't counter the established results of radidating, you really don't have anything.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:13 PM on December 24, 2005 | IP
plunge

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am a Chrisitian.  Or, to use the secular humanisits/ liberal christian terminology,  "fundamentalist"


I'm sorry, but you don't get to define what Christian means or imply that your particular sect has exclusive clami to what is "truly" a Christian.  If you wish to better define the patriculars of your belief, you can just be more specific rather than trying to imply that people who aren't in your particular sect aren't Christians.

I have found that the entire theory of evolution, and all its supporting evidence are based on one idea.  Uniformitarianism.


In a certain sense, true, but it'snot just evolution, but all of science and all empirical observation that uses this idea (including the legal system and your everyday observations of the world around you).  Be further careful in that there are only a very very few things which scientists treat as uniform.  The scientific picture of the world is in general anything BUT uniform (it's chaotic and dynamic), and it is only a very few physical constants that are treated as uniform, and not without some very good reasons.

The idea that the processes happening today on Earth have always happened, and at around the same rate.  The is used to prove gradual plate movements, erosion rates, and most important of all, radiometric dating.


See, this is where you're getting off-track.  None of these, with the exception of radioactive decay (which is USED in radiometric dating, but isn't the whole story) are examples of the scientific principle of uniformity, except in the very general philosophical sense.  All of the rates you note are measured and cross-checked against many many other forms of evidence, not assumed, and they are NOT, in fact constant or universal.  Figuring out exactly how they speeded up, slowed down, and what their history was is a very important part of geology and other sciences (by the way: it's not true that all plates are slowing.  Some are slowing, some are speeding up, and they are doing so according to what are a whole host of now fairly well understood reasons)

4~6 thousand years ago, U-235 may have had a half like of 3 weeks, or even less.  This would explain why many old fossils/rocks give different dates on different methods, or even the same method on different samples.  Likewise, the movement of plates over the mantle has been proven by science to have been slowing even over the few decades we've been observing it.  This slowing may not be linear as teh evolutionists want to believe, but exponetial.


There are several imporant responses to this.

If the rates of change of these processes were really so radically different in the past, they would leave evidence of being so.  Remember how I said that those rates are measured and cross-checked by other processes and evidence for and against?  

For instance, the amount of radiation that would have to have come out of rocks for your theory to be true would have killed most forms of life on earth.  The amount of energy required to move the plates as fast as your theory would require would litterally shatter the continents and tear apart the surface of the earth.  Again, there is no evidence of any of this.  

Furthermore, it isn't just one dating method or another individually that convinces people of the age of the earth.  It's many many different lines of evidence examined in tandem, all of which agree and cross confirm each other.  It's certainly possible that for one reason or another we've got some method of dating wrong, and hence it is supplying us with wrong answers.  But since all the methods of dating roughly agree within their margins of error, what yuo are suggesting would require not only that each and every method be mistaken and erroneous, but that these unforseen errors all happen to give the exact same results, even in the fine detail of cross-comparison (say, by looking at the radio-active date of a rock in the spreading seafloor, which also dates it, as well as the magnetic reversal data that also dates it as well as fossils in the rock which... etc. etc.)  It is _extremely_ unlikely that if even all the methods of dating were wrong, that they would agree on the same wrong answer.  Error does not coordinate.  Only truth supplies a reason for any coordination between the different methods.

Final Thought:
I think the most important response to this is to try and think like a scientist thinks.  What you have are some interesting hypotheses about how or why radioactive dating or the history of plate tectonics could be wrong.  As Mike calls them: possibilities.  But as scientists, we aren't willing to simply stop at that point, having raised those issues.  We have to take the next step: if those things were actually true, how could we test to see if they were true?  What OTHER effects might they have that we could use to confirm whether or not they fit with the evidence we have from the natural world?

What some here have been doing so far (albiet rather aggressively) is basically to do just that: present contrary evidence that shows that those possibilities just aren't plausible or possible given what else we know about the world.  I've also explained some (i.e. the idea that if radioactive isotopes once expelled radiation at high enough rates to throw off our dating assumptions by enough to turn a date of billions to one of a few thousand, this would mean an absoluetly incredible amount of deadly radiation shooting out like never-ending shotgun blasts from and into nearly every area on the planet: something that would leave a lot of tell-tale signs that are, in fact, missing).  

So in science, it's just not enough to present some speculation of how something might be possible.  You have to ask: given the rest of the evidence, and given what my hypothesis implies is that really plausible?  Does it match up with everything else we know about the world?  Can we test for it, and what do the tests show us?

In fact, scientists DID indeed think of things along the lines of what you suggest.  The idea that radioactive decay was roughly constant, or that plate movements were generally slow and constant, was not always a known scientific fact.  Scientists DID in fact try to test out those ideas, and the consensus on those is based on these explorations and their findings: not on any sort of blind faith.

(Edited by plunge 12/25/2005 at 12:46 AM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:33 AM on December 25, 2005 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fredguff at 06:10 AM on December 22, 2005 :



Now since my claim relates to my own personal experience I have nothing to prove.  


In that case, since MickG's claims relate to his own personal experience he has nothing to prove. Works both ways.  

 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 03:14 AM on December 27, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In that case, since MickG's claims relate to his own personal experience he has nothing to prove. Works both ways.
 

It all depends on what MickG's motivations are.  The general consensus of the scientific community is that a global flood never occured on earth; least of all in the last 10-15k yrs.  If all MickG wants to do is let us know that his opinion on the Noachian flood differs from the status quo of the science community then he has succeeded.  If MickG wants to demonstrate that he can overturn the status-quo then he has failed.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 08:07 AM on December 27, 2005 | IP
zyzygy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from MickG at 05:03 AM on December 22, 2005 :
I got the idea of world-wide sediments from a geology site (www.uh.edu/~jbutler/physical/chapter7.html). I suggest you tell them that their claims are invalid.

Except that the link says "Sedimentary rocks cover some 80% of the Earth's crust"
What about the other 20%?



 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 10:11 AM on December 27, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OMG YES I FINALLY GOT TO LOG BACK IN *BEEPIN* YES!!!!

Oh hi by the way. To any of you who don't know me, my other accounts on this forum include Box of Fox and Foxtrot12 (you can see I've had some trouble with this forum before >__>

So anyway, back on topic, Demon I was very impressed with your second post. Exact thing I wanted to say after I had read our guest's first post on this thread.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 11:17 PM on January 3, 2006 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually, there is enough water in all of the earth to cover everything.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:11 PM on October 18, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually, there is enough water in all of the earth to cover everything.

If this statement is true, why isn't the earth covered by water now?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:32 PM on October 18, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because land is rased above sea leavel. If you were to make the world a perfect sphere it would compleatly covered in water.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:04 PM on October 19, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because land is rased above sea leavel. If you were to make the world a perfect sphere it would compleatly covered in water.

but for the last couple of billion years we know the earth has not been a perfect sphere.  So there could not have been enough water to cover the earth in Noah's time, the earth could not possibly have been completely flooded.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:36 PM on October 19, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.