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
     *Hey im new here I HAVE A Q*~
       hey i have a question on creationism..

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

    
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From ICR

"The exact nature of existence in the lake of fire" has not been revealed, but the essence of its suffering must lie in the fact that there is no manifestation there of the presence and power and love of God—the natural and proper end of those who have rejected Him and His great love for them."

Apoapsis, I don't see anything in this quote that indicates that the cause of the lake of fire is evolution (or not a literal creation).

This one makes it obvious that they do not adhere to this:

"Scripture says, “He that believeth on the Son hath (not ‘hopes to have,” but ‘has’ right now!) everlasting life” (John 3:36)."

Note: They said "he that believeth on the Son," not a literal six day creation!


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 8:03 PM on April 11, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As to plate tectonics, I firmly believe science is absolutely right on with plate rates.  But I don't think the current calculations take the force of the global flood into account when calculating the speed at which they separated 5000 years ago compared to the speed they have leveled off at in the present.  Think about it - as the flood happened there was a horrible tearing tha litterally ripped the land apart to form continents.  All at once the entire earth was rent.  Wow... what force... .what power.  Can you imagine the force that caused two land masses to shove together so much that the tallest mountain in the world would     form?

Wow!  What force!  Land masses that size moving that quickly would produce so much heat that they would have boiled the oceans away, the steam produced would have destroyed ANY life left on the planet.  Once again, your scenario for the flood is simply impossilbe!  

Now let's look at all the inaccuracies you posted about radiometric dating:

One of the major assumptions you have to make about any radiometric dating method is the amount of radiometric material the item started with.

Not so!  From here:Rdating

"It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes. The original abundance N0, of the parent is simply N0 = N ekt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life."

So no you don't have to make any assumptions about the amount of radioatice substance the material started with.

If a global flood did happen, and the earth was torn as the Bible says, and the fountains of the deep did spring up that would have carried this larger concentration of radiometric material with it to the surface.  It then covered the surface and settleed into the rock layers, fossil beds, etc all over the earth as all the strata were laid down by water (in varying degrees depending on factors such as flow, depth, structure etc - basically depending on the conditions of the area) all over the earth.  This sudden increase in radiometric particles would DEFINATELY skew the calculations we use to assume how much of these radiometric particles we started with at creation.

What??!!  Are you proposing that the flood was so deep that it carried radioactive material from the deep earth?  Down where the the temp. is hotter than the surface of the sun????  

This sudden increase in radiometric particles would DEFINATELY skew the calculations we use to assume how much of these radiometric particles we started with at creation.

Except this isn't even remotely possible!

supposed it's probably not a co-incidence that the life span of human beings went from 700-900 years to about 100-120 years about that same time... at least within a    generation.

But of course it's not remotely possible that human life spans were ever even close to 700-900 years, that you assert this is beyond ridiculous!  Please show us some concrete evidence that human life spans were ever greater than they are now...

Now I have given you a several reasonable alternate explanations to several items and events.  Some you proabably were not prepared for or might never have heard before.  Do you feel a little cheated that you were never at least presented this information so that you could make a logical choice??  

No, I've heard most of these claims before, they flew in the face of reality then and now.  What I find amazing is that there is actually adults, in school yet, that are ignorant enough to claim they are true!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:53 PM on April 11, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon:  Now my impression of you is someone who is teetering on the brink of your faith, it's so fragile that any common sense will send you over the edge, so you shut your mind to reality, and repeat your mantra, "science is wrong, the bible is right, science is wrong, the bible is right,..." ad infinitum.

Interestingly enough, isn't that exactly what happened to you?  You "lost your faith" as it were?  You sold out your belief because you were unable to defend it.  You were probably embarrassed at some time by an evolutionist and you blame God and creationists for it.  

Demon:  Evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth are virtual facts.

How long has it been 4.5 billion years old?  I mean a few years ago it was 5 billion... maybe it was 3 billion for a while.  How old did Darwin say it was in his book "The Origin of Species : By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in theStruggle for Life"?  Wow favored races?  I guess he was a racist - he considered negroid races to be less evolved - is that also a virtual fact or has that idea changed as well?

Science may change over the years... evolution textbooks may change ... the Bible doesn't change.  It has been around for thousands of years, yet it still can't be scientifically disproven.  If you believe what it says, it makes perfect sense of the world in which we live - without changing it's story to fit with science (as evolution does).  

Demon: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution

I have shown several extremely plausible cases of biology and geology that make sense - obviously the SOCIETY FOR INTEGRATIVE AND COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY and Demon have chosen to ignore this entirely or they wouldn't make such a broad unsubstanciable claim.

TQ: and Nobody noticed!?!  

Well, they wouldn't if they were floating above it in an Ark would they?  I remind you that it only rained for 40 days and nights, but they were in the ark for hundreds of days.  If the flood is what sparked the plates moving in the first place, it would be logical to assume that a force strong enough to make them initially move and literally tear the land in pieces probably did a lot of that work by the time the ark was finding land.

Fine, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which you have yet to produce.  Let's see it.

How about billions of dead things burried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.  How about some type of global flood appearing in most cultures history or legends.  How about drawings of dinosaurs made my native americans in the US.  How bout finding T-Rex bones with red blood cells in them.

and totally disregards fact along the way


Such as?  I see consistency all the way through the Bible.

TQ: virtually all the facts in geology, biology, anthropology, etc. disagree with what the bible says.

Such as?  You mean like the earth is flat?  That kind of fact?  You mean like Piltdown man?  That kind of fact?  Or do you mean the interpretation of facts through the lense of the evolution religion?  Such as "negroids being a lesser evolved race" - that kind of fact?   Excuse me - but it seems like your "facts" keep changing on you.  Which is pretty odd... since facts dont' change... only interpretation of those facts change.  

TQ:  No, the ToE is a fact.

A fact?  Wow... it's the most changed and revised fact in the history of science then isn't it.  Wait - I thought facts didn't change.  Wait a sec - I thought even evolutionists (honest ones anyway) still called it the THEORY of evolution.  So you have declared it fact now have you?  

TQ: do you really think that Carbon dating would give an accurate age of the earth?

Lets broaden your question to include all forms of radiometric dating.  My answer then would be "does it say the earth is 6000 years old?  If not, it's probably inaccurate because the geneologies in the Bible have already made it clear how old the earth is."  Lets say that a creationist came up with a theory on a dating method that would give ~ 6000 year old results - you would assume as an evolutionist there was a flaw wouldn't you?  Why?  Because you already believe that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and that doesn't fit with your belief system.  

It comes down to this - what do you believe is absolute truth?  This determines the lense through which you interpret all scientific data.  You believe, as we have already discussed that evolution is fact - you believe that it is absolute truth.  How much plainer can I describe it?  Your view of any "facts" or "evidence" is influenced by this view.  Just as is mine in regards to the Bible.

You as a creationist see seashells on top of it and say "see, noah's flood did that".  Now, what facts did you use to arrive at that conclusion?

The same facts you did, only I interpreted them correctly.  Whew!  Glad we cleared that one up.

TQ:  God told me!

He did indeed.  Thanks God!  Isn't it exciting to be a christian and know the truth!  w00t!

On what do you base the apparent age of the earth being 6K years?

Well, first off, I look at Genesis.  It gives the seven 24 hour days that God created the universe and earth in.  And it says that Adam was created on the 6th day.  It then gives detailed geneologies from Adam on ward to Jesus.  Using this we can easily create a timeline to use as the framework for our hypothesis.  We then use science and all the same evidence and facts that you use to prove evolution and using the tools of logic and observation prove that it is plausible that it happened the way the Bible says it did.  Wow!  Again - it's so exciteing to be a christian!

TQ:  How do you explain anomalies?

I know there are a lot of these in evolution, so I won't hold that question against you.  If you have any questions about the creation or the timeline, I would be happy to answer them.

TQ:  It's quite another to tell me to repent or go to hell.

I agree entirely.  However, if I don't offer you the truth about hell, and you go there - it would be tremendously selfish of me wouldn't it?  To know the truth and not at least give you the opportunity to know it aswell.  TQ, you are a completly free moral agent.  You can decide your own fate.  The Bible says "I have placed before you life and blessing, or death and cursing.  Therefore choose.".  

TQ: If he didn't want people to reach the results, why provide the evidence pointing in that direction?

What I am trying to show you is that he provided us with the correct framework to interpret the facts around us.  Evolution is a humanistic theocrisy.  The evidence points in the direction of the Bible and creation if you observe the evidece and facts in the proper context.  That's why he gave the Bible... that's why he gave us logic and reason.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 01:56 AM on April 12, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interestingly enough, isn't that exactly what happened to you?  You "lost your faith" as it were?  You sold out your belief because you were unable to defend it.  You were probably embarrassed at some time by an evolutionist and you blame God and creationists for it.

Did you miss the part were I said I realized evolution was logical and accepted it since I was 7 or 8??  I have always accepted the theory of evolution.  Yeah, I lost my faith, couldn't live my life believing in fairytales anymore, but as long as I can remember Adam and Eve, Noah, 6 day creation were never real.  So one again, you're little insight on me is wrong.  

How long has it been 4.5 billion years old?  I mean a few years ago it was 5 billion... maybe it was 3 billion for a while.  How old did Darwin say it was in his book "The Origin of Species : By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in theStruggle for Life"?  Wow favored races?  I guess he was a racist - he considered negroid races to be less evolved - is that also a virtual fact or has that idea changed as well?

But that's how science works!  As our instruments become more and more precise, we can arrive at more and more precise estimates of the age of the earth.  Science never dogmatically sticks with the wrong answers, like the bible does, it always updates itself, always changes with new evidence.  As to Darwin being a racists, what do the prevelant social mores of the time have to do with evolution????

Science may change over the years... evolution textbooks may change ... the Bible doesn't change.  It has been around for thousands of years, yet it still can't be scientifically disproven.  If you believe what it says, it makes perfect sense of the world in which we live - without changing it's story to fit with science (as evolution does).

Oh please, the bible says the earth is unmoving, it says the earth is flat, it says leprosy can be cured with pigeons blood and incantations, it says true believers can be unaffected by venomous snake bites and toxic poisons, it says insects have four legs, it says rabbits chew cud, the list goes on and on.  It does not make perfect sense.

I have shown several extremely plausible cases of biology and geology that make sense - obviously the SOCIETY FOR INTEGRATIVE AND COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY and Demon have chosen to ignore this entirely or they wouldn't make such a broad unsubstanciable claim.

You've shown us nothing.  You still claim Mendel disproves evolution!!!!  I still get a chuckle out of that one!  And you just mentioned the Society of Integative and Comparative Biology, why don't you mention virtually every other biological organization in the world, since they all support evolution.
And once again the theory of evolution is substantiated by multiple lines of evidence, the fossil record, genetics, biogeography, endogenous retroviruses, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies, to name a few.

And just as every biological organization on earth supports evolution, every geological organization on earth will tell you the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.  And every oil company in the world will tell you the same thing.  Oil companies use the standard old earth model to find oil reserves, and guess what, it works.  No oil company uses a creationist model of a young earth because they would find nothing because the creationist model is wrong.  From the USGS

"Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System."

This is the consensus, there is no debate about the age of the earth in the world of geology.  You have shown nothing to cast any doubt on the subject.  

Well, they wouldn't if they were floating above it in an Ark would they?  I remind you that it only rained for 40 days and nights, but they were in the ark for hundreds of days.  If the flood is what sparked the plates moving in the first place, it would be logical to assume that a force strong enough to make them initially move and literally tear the land in pieces probably did a lot of that work by the time the ark was finding land.

All ready shown to be impossible, tectonic plates moving that fast would vaporize the oceans.

How about billions of dead things burried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.  How about some type of global flood appearing in most cultures history or legends.  How about drawings of dinosaurs made my native americans in the US.  How bout finding T-Rex bones with red blood cells in them.

Billions of things buried in strict chronological order, that could not possibly be buried together in a flood (remember, there have been no out of date fossils found yet, no dinosaurs buried with humans, no rabbits buried with thecodonts, no icthyosaurs buried with dolphins....) so no giant flood.  Flood legends abound because most early civilizations started near rivers, but there are numerous civilizations that exist before the supposed flood, during the supposed flood and after the supposed flood, so no flood.  Pictures of dinosaurs?  Could be made up, could be from fossils the indians found...
And no T-Rex bones were found with blood cells in them.

Such as?  I see consistency all the way through the Bible.

But you're a creationist, your mental faculties are already in question!  

Such as?  You mean like the earth is flat?  That kind of fact?  You mean like Piltdown man?  That kind of fact?  Or do you mean the interpretation of facts through the lense of the evolution religion?  Such as "negroids being a lesser evolved race" - that kind of fact?   Excuse me - but it seems like your "facts" keep changing on you.  Which is pretty odd... since facts dont' change... only interpretation of those facts change.

What???  It is an established fact that life on this planet has changed many times through out it's billions of years old history.  That's the facts, evolution is the ONLY scienctific, unfalsified theory that explains this.  The rest of your babbling doesn't amount to a hill of beans...

A fact?  Wow... it's the most changed and revised fact in the history of science then isn't it.  Wait - I thought facts didn't change.  Wait a sec - I thought even evolutionists (honest ones anyway) still called it the THEORY of evolution.  So you have declared it fact now have you?

Life changes, thats a fact.  The theory of evolution explains this better than anything else.  As with all science, the more evidence we find, the better the theory becomes.  The theory of evolution will continue to change and be refined for centuries to come, that's the nature of good science!

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"During the past century and a half, the earth's crust and the fossils preserved in it have been intensively studied by geologists and paleontologists. Biologists have intensively studied the origin, structure, physiology, and genetics of living organisms. The conclusion of these studies is that the living species of animals and plants have evolved from different species that lived in the past. The scientists involved in these studies have built up the body of knowledge known as the biological theory of the origin and evolution of life. There is no currently acceptable alternative scientific theory to explain the phenomena. "

From the American Astronomical Society:

"The American Astronomical Society (AAS) is the largest organization of professional astronomers in the United States. Its 6,000 members are men and women of all convictions and a variety of religious faiths. They work in ALL fields of astronomy, including the study of planets, of stars and of the Universe as a whole. Research in each of these areas, and in many other areas of astronomy, has produced clear, compelling and widely accepted evidence that astronomical objects and systems evolve. That is, their properties change with time, often over very long time scales.
Specifically, the scientific evidence clearly indicates that the Universe is 10 to 15 billion years old, and began in a hot, dense state we call the Big Bang.
Given the ample evidence that change over time is a crucial property of planets, including our own, of stars, of galaxies and of the Universe as a whole, it is important for the nation's school children to learn about the great age of, and changes in, astronomical systems, as well as their present properties."

The Bible says "I have placed before you life and blessing, or death and cursing.  Therefore choose.".  

I choose reality and reject your silly myths!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:02 AM on April 12, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YET states:
Apoapsis, I don't see anything in this quote that indicates that the cause of the lake of fire is evolution (or not a literal creation).


No, the cause is MUCH more general than that.   According to them, any Christian who "adds to or takes away" from the Bible will be cast into the "lake of fire", or hell, to be less poetical, evolution is just a small part of the picture of the long list of things they will happily denounce you for.

Add this statement of theirs to the previous two:

This month on "Science, Scripture, & Salvation":
Weekend of: Title/Topic:

Mar. 3 "Theistic Evolution"
To appear more "scientific"—many Christians have let evolutionary theory cloud what the Bible really says—adding millions and even billions of years to the Creation Week in Genesis. What does this do to the reliability of God's Word? Tune in to find out!


Are you trying to tell us that you really believe that the ICR position is that Christian evolutionists are not endangering their salvation?

Christianity has no problem with evolution, fundamentalism does.


-------
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: 1:51 PM on April 12, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You were probably embarrassed at some time by an evolutionist and you blame God and creationists for it.

Let's keep the little insights to ourselves, shall we, as they offer nothing to the debate
How long has it been 4.5 billion years old?  I mean a few years ago it was 5 billion... maybe it was 3 billion for a while.  How old did Darwin say it was in his book "The Origin of Species : By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in theStruggle for Life"?

How old did Kelvin (who creationist's love to claim as their own) say it was?  I believe he came up with a date of a few hundred million years.  The fact remains that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.  As the methods used to determine this have become more refined, the age has gotten progressively older.  No scientist has actually believed the earth was 6000 years old for a few hundred years.

Wow favored races?  I guess he was a racist - he considered negroid races to be less evolved - is that also a virtual fact or has that idea changed as well?

Frst off, by "races" he was speaking of species.  Secondly, by today's standards, everyone was racist.  So yes, he was a racist, but no more so than anyone at that time.
Science may change over the years... evolution textbooks may change ... the Bible doesn't change.  It has been around for thousands of years, yet it still can't be scientifically disproven.

Wrong, as Demon pointed out with just a few examples.  The bible is not meant to be a book of history and science.  It is a book of philosophy and religion.  For those purposes it is well suited.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution

Once again, a quote made by one that creationists call their own, Theodosius Dobzhansky, who was a devout orthodox catholic.
Well, they wouldn't if they were floating above it in an Ark would they?

So, there was no mountains, then during the flood, a five mile high mountain rose up, above the flood waters (since yuo already said that it wasn't there before and rose up during the flood) and once again, no one noticed?!?  Never mind the impossibility of a flood, as Demon said, you've just vaporised the oceans and poached Noah.
1.How about billions of dead things burried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. 2. How about some type of global flood appearing in most cultures history or legends.  3.How about drawings of dinosaurs made my native americans in the US.  4.How bout finding T-Rex bones with red blood cells in them.

1. How about chronological order?  How about very selective arrangement of strata?  How do you explain the fact that fossils are found in the order predicted by the ToE?  How do you explain the lack of sorting of sediments?  If there had been a global flood that laid down all that sediment, why do we not find the sediments ordered from heaviest particles to smallest?  
2. Demon already answered that one well enough, but here's a question:  Why do the stories differ so much?
3. Demon got othat one too
4. How about "it never happened:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
I see consistency all the way through the Bible.

Then you are willfully deluding yourself
1. You mean like the earth is flat?  That kind of fact?  2.You mean like Piltdown man?  That kind of fact?  3.Or do you mean the interpretation of facts through the lense of the evolution religion?  4.Such as "negroids being a lesser evolved race" - that kind of fact?   Excuse me - but it seems like your "facts" keep changing on you.  Which is pretty odd... since facts dont' change... only interpretation of those facts change.

1.  Bible says that, not evolution, so I have no idea what the hell you're trying to prove here, other than the bible is not scientifcally accurate, which is my point.
2. You mean like the fraud that was exposed by science using scientific methods 60-70 years ago?  You mean the fraud that was relegated to the background before it was proven a fraud by science because it didn't make any sense and didn't fit the prediction of the ToE?
3.  More garbage
4. The ToE does not say this either.  In fact, the ToE says that we are the same minus a few small differences.  The ToE speaks againstracism.  Shall we bring up what the bible says about race?

Amazing how we keep adjusting our theories to fit the facts, isn't it?  That's what science does.
So you have declared it fact now have you?

I haven't declared it anything.  It is a fact, no matter how much you want to deny it.
The same facts you did, only I interpreted them correctly.

Except you took three facts and made up a theory, disregarding what didn't fit with your preconceived notion (which amounted to a whole lot more than three basic statements).
Lets broaden your question to include all forms of radiometric dating.  My answer then would be "does it say the earth is 6000 years old?  If not, it's probably inaccurate because the geneologies in the Bible have already made it clear how old the earth is."  


I point out your ignorance in stating that Carbon dating was used to arrive at the age of the earth, and you ignore it.  You then go on to state that it doesn't matter what dates are given from what methods, if it's not 6K years, it's wrong.  And you honestly expect us to take any "science" from you seriously after a statement like that?

The rest is pseudo religous nonsense that any true christian would shake their head at, and as such is not worth bothering with





(Edited by TQ 4/12/2004 at 2:10 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: 2:05 PM on April 12, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon: Did you miss the part were I said I realized evolution was logical and accepted it since I was 7 or 8??  I have always accepted the theory of evolution.  Yeah, I lost my faith, couldn't live my life believing in fairytales anymore, but as long as I can remember Adam and Eve, Noah, 6 day creation were never real.  So one again, you're little insight on me is wrong.  

So what you are saying is you let a humanistic religous organization undermine the Bibles authority in your life.  Not surprising in the least that you rejected the Bible under those circumstances.  

Demon: As to Darwin being a racists...

My point (which it seems was looked over) is that you were treating things as fact when they were not - they were interpretations of facts.  

Demon: Oh please, the bible says the earth is unmoving, it says the earth is flat, it says leprosy can be cured with pigeons blood and incantations, it says true believers can be unaffected by venomous snake bites and toxic poisons, it says insects have four legs, it says rabbits chew cud, the list goes on and on.

It does?  Can you show me where it says these things?  The Bible can be misinterpreted as can anything else.  It is clear you haven't actually done much reading of the Bible, but (again) rely on what someone else has told you about it - the same as you have done with evolution.

If I can at least get you, Demon, to think on your own I will have achieved that zen state of oneness with the universe.  Of course, I jest.

You still claim Mendel disproves evolution

If you would exercise your own brain and follow his work to a logical conclusion (instead of allowing everyone else to tell you what to think) you might realize that his work lays the principle groundwork for genetics.  It is because of the principles of his work, that we can make the claims we do.

And just as every biological organization on earth supports evolution, every geological organization on earth will tell you the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

The fact that I have presented evidence against million/billion years origin history using both biology and geology should give you enough information to logically deduce that this statement is entirely false.  You go on to build your argument based on this "evidence".  Yet again - you present a hypothesis as though the theory itself were fact.  Demon - (if you have a real name I will use it - I hate to pronounce a negative impact on you just by calling your name) I beleive you are probably capable of using your own mind to logically and critically consider these things and come TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS!  You keep parroting rote evolutionary dogma.  

Demon: ... plates moving that fast would vaporize the oceans...

If that were the only means by which the mountain rose, I might agree with you.  AiG puts it this way -

A Mechanism?
The catastrophic plate tectonics model gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the flood.

As the new ocean floors cooled, they would have become denser and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents. The deepening of the ocean basins and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land.

The collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, especially toward the end of the flood.


Billions of things buried in strict chronological order...

Except for the fact that it's not as strict as you think.  There are fossils penetrating many layers. This means that many varves must have formed before the organism had a chance to rot. Operational science shows that fish break down in days even when protected from oxygen and scavengers.

Check out this page on AiG:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v15n2_behemoth.asp

It gives the Biblical basis for which we frame our belief that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time.  

For some evidence of human fossils mixed with dinosaur fossils - AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/dinosaurs.asp

Also - regarding red blood cells found in t-rex bones - it is true.  Some guys from the University of Montana found it and put it under a microscope.  M. Schweitzer and I. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 55–57, June 1997.

But you're a creationist, your mental faculties are already in question!  

Is that kind of broad generalization the basis for ALL the facts in evolution, or just the ones you present?  According to those online IQ tests I am 140 or 150 IQ (depending on which test you take).  

Demon:  evolution is the ONLY scienctific, unfalsified theory that explains this...

By your definition of "falsified" I would have to say that evolution has been disproven many times over.

About it being the ONLY theory that explains everything - this is entirely erroneous.

Demon:  Life changes, thats a fact.

I am not disputing the validily of life changing.  I am disputing the validity of evolution as a fact.  You said evolution was a fact.  Well, facts don't change.  You agree that evolution has changed.  

Again... an evolutionist's logic at it's best:
Facts don't change. -->  Evolution changes.  --> Therefore evolution is a fact!  

Apoapsis:
That includes creationists and preachers too, you know.  If a creationist or preacher were to add or subtract they would be in violation of that warning as well.  Your assertion that JUST because someone believes in evolution they will go to hell must therefore be false.  

Let's keep the little insights to ourselves, shall we, as they offer nothing to the debate.

I didn't mean to offend you, I was simply "following suit" as it were.  You remember when Demon said "Now my impression of you is someone who is teetering on the brink of your faith, it's so fragile..."?  I was simply responding using the same frame of reference.  In fact, he had previously given information about his fall away from his faith in another post.  They may offer little to the debate, but they may offer a great deal of insight into why Demon argues the way he does.  You think that is irrelevant to the debate?

No scientist has actually believed the earth was 6000 years old for a few hundred years.

Like all your other "facts" and "evidences" for evolution, this argument is based on an entirely false assumption:  
Young Earth Scientists Alive Today

TQ: Frst off, by "races" he was speaking of species.

I accept that argument.  However, I would also add that he believed there were 5 species of humans ranging from the unevolved negroid species to the highest evolved cacasoid species.  Again, my point is not to point out what a racist Darwin was (which he was) or how much evolution has contributed to racism (which it has), but that evolution is not a fact.  It is a theory.  Once with many revisions and changes.  Demon has indicated his belief that the framework of evolution is an absolute fact that can be relied upon for interpreting scientific data.  My intention was to show him examples where this concept has already failed.

TQ: The bible is not meant to be a book of history and science.  It is a book of philosophy and religion.  For those purposes it is well suited.

Where the Bible touches on history it is accurate.  Where the Bible touches on science, it is true.

So yes, he was a racist, but no more so than anyone at that time.

So your argument is that his evil doesn't count because it was less evil than others?  This is a fallicious argument.

So, there was no mountains, then during the flood, a five mile high mountain rose up, above the flood waters (since yuo already said that it wasn't there before and rose up during the flood) and once again, no one noticed?!?  

Considering there were 8 people left on the planet, and they landed somewhere in the middle east / africa area, I would say that no, probably no one noticed.  We also know from the Bible's history that they stuck around the middle east area for a while until the time of Babel and Peleg.

TQ: How about very selective arrangement of strata?

Have you ever put a few kinds of sedment in a large jar, filled it with water, mixed it up, then turned it on end and watched as the layers formed?  It's pretty cool.  After it all settles you end up with a "distinct selective arrangement of strata".

TQ: Why do the stories differ so much?

Have you ever played the little game as kid where you get a big group and have everyone sit in a circle and then the first person whispers a phrase in the ear of the person next to them - you go around the room till the phrase gets back to the first person.  It is usually very different from what it started out to be.  Besides, what grandparent you know ever tells a story the way it actually happened.  That 4 lb fish always ends up being 25lbs after a while.  The point is, it's human nature to embellish and sensationalize.  But you will notice the "main points" are usually the same - there was a global flood, 8 people and all the animals survived on a boat, etc.

Regarding cave drawings, etc - Linky

TQ:  how bout it never happened

How bout it did happen and you just wish it didn't (as the evidence clearly shows it happened).  I read the talkorigins.org review.  It basically said bla bla bla we don't like weiland... bla bla bla.  It never gives anything in the way of true evidence - it spouts evolutionary propaganda left and right - and it does so using the most loft and complex sentences and words it can muster to make itself sound intelligent.  In content, they had nothing to refute the fact that the people who originally released the information were sincere.  Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter,1997 The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June pp. 55-57.  

TQ: Then you are willfully deluding yourself

Actually, i have taken the time to do real study in the Bible - have you?  Has any evolutionist?  Or do you rely on search engine quips taken out of context for your view on what it says?  I would guess the latter based on your arguments about the Bible thus far.

Bible says that, not evolution, so I have no idea what the hell you're trying to prove here, other than the bible is not scientifcally accurate, which is my point.

This only proves my last point.  Show me where it says this in the Bible.  I mean this in an entirely non-emotional, non-offensive mannor - YOU ARE EXTREMELY IGNORANT OF WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.  That is to say - you don't have a clue of what it says or doesn't say.  I have read the entire Bible through 5 times... it says nothing of the earth being flat, I assure you.

prediction of the ToE

The Theory of Evolution is in the prophecy business is it?

TQ: Shall we bring up what the bible says about race?

Yes, lets do.  I am very interested to hear your expert Bible advice again.

In fact, the bible makes it clear that ALL humans come from Adam - ALL humans are the same race.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

So if all people were decended from Adam, what room is there for racism?  We are all the same race.  

TQ:  
-No, the ToE is a fact.
-Amazing how we keep adjusting our theories to fit the facts, isn't it?
-It is a fact, no matter how much you want to deny it.


So, what you are telling me is that the ToE is absolute truth?  That all facts must be made to line up with the ToE?
I would say that, at least for you, TQ, Evolution is a religion indeed.  I would venture to say for most evolutionists.  

TQ: Except you took three facts and made up a theory, disregarding what didn't fit with your preconceived notion (which amounted to a whole lot more than three basic statements).

And an evolutionist does the same thing a hundred times a day.  For example, you just admitted to us that you believe the ToE to be a fact.  So you are basically saying your preconceived notion is that the ToE is true.

I point out your ignorance in stating that Carbon dating was used to arrive at the age of the earth, and you ignore it.  You then go on to state that it doesn't matter what dates are given from what methods, if it's not 6K years, it's wrong.  And you honestly expect us to take any "science" from you seriously after a statement like that?

You pointed out that carbon dating is only good to 50,000 years.  I believe the earth is 6000 years old.  While the theoretical limits of carbon dating would fit with that timescale, I would still maintain there are too many assumptions that have to be made in order to use radiometric dating.


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:04 PM on April 12, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Let's keep the little insights to ourselves, shall we, as they offer nothing to the debate

Therefore, it might be worth while to live up to your own criteria.

TQ: How old did Kelvin (who creationist's love to claim as their own) say it was?  I believe he came up with a date of a few hundred million years.

One hundred million years as an upper limit:

"A century ago, Lord Kelvin calculated an upper limit for the age of the Earth. By estimating how long it would take an earth-sized molten sphere to cool to today’s temperatures, he obtained a maximum age near 100 million years. Some of his contemporaries argued for a maximum age as low at 10 million years.1 It is not difficult to see why these values were distastefully low for both evolutionists in biology as well as uniformitarians in geology."

This is much to young for uniformitarianism. Although, 100 million years is a young earth compared to 4.5 / 4.6 billion years. Keep in mind that this was considered an upper limit, not the actual age. That evidence alone indicates an earth much younger than 4.5 billion years.

TQ: Frst off, by "races" he was speaking of species.  Secondly, by today's standards, everyone was racist.  So yes, he was a racist, but no more so than anyone at that time.

It is first good to acknowledge before pointing to Darwin for racism, that it existed long before modern evolutionary theory. Likewise, there are strong links to racism that can be traced to evolution.

A book that covers much of this subject is Aborigines in White Australia: A Documentary History of the Attitudes Affecting Official Policy and the Australian Aborigine 1697–1973. This volume shows some obvious links between Darwinian evolution and racism.

The books editor wrote:

"In 1859 Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species popularized the notion of biological (and therefore social) evolution. Scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with races able to ascend or descend a graduated scale. The European was … the “fittest to survive" …  was doomed to die out according to a "natural law", like the dodo and the dinosaur. This theory, supported by the facts at hand continued to be quoted until well into the twentieth century when it was noticed that the dark-skinned race was multiplying. Until that time it could be used to justify neglect and murder."

TQ: So, there was no mountains, then during the flood, a five mile high mountain rose up, above the flood waters (since yuo already said that it wasn't there before and rose up during the flood) and once again, no one noticed?!?  Never mind the impossibility of a flood, as Demon said, you've just vaporised the oceans and poached Noah.

I have already refuted Demon38's claims about heat. The flow of heat out of the earth is strongly correlated locally with the amount of radioactivity in the near surface rocks. This indicates that the surface heat flow is dominated by the radioactive heat production in these rocks. However, the quantity of radioactive heat production even in highly radioactive granitic rock appears to be insufficient to produce the observed patterns of surface heat flow if one assumes current decay rates over a period of just a few thousand years.

TQ: 1. How about chronological order?  How about very selective arrangement of strata?  How do you explain the fact that fossils are found in the order predicted by the ToE?  How do you explain the lack of sorting of sediments?  If there had been a global flood that laid down all that sediment, why do we not find the sediments ordered from heaviest particles to smallest?

And why are the contact points smooth showing little or no erosion, but yet they intervals between the layers are supposed to be atleast 10 million years worth? This is evidence for a flood that I have yet to get a straight answer for- Im still waiting.

TQ: 2. Demon already answered that one well enough, but here's a question:  Why do the stories differ so much?

Word of mouth, unlike hard written documents are more subject to change.

TQ: Amazing how we keep adjusting our theories to fit the facts, isn't it?  That's what science does.

I totally agree. Infact, there have been many creationist theories that have been shot down and revised (despite the fact that "Dr" Hovind still uses them). AiG published a list of arguments creationists should not use at all, or have since been revised.

For example,

Which arguments should definitely not be used?

1. Darwin Recanted on his deathbead

2. Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon

3. Nasa computers, in calculating the position of the planets found a missing day and forty minutes.

4. Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe [ed note: A particular Hovind favorite]

5. The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in “old” strata invalidate the geologic column.

6. Dubois renounced Java man as a “missing link” and claimed it was just a giant gibbon.

7. The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand [ed note: Another major Hovind favorite]

8. The second law of thermodynamics began at the fall [ed note: Yet another Hovind favorite]

9. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?

10. Women have one more rib than men.

11. Archaeopteryx is a fraud.

12. There are no beneficial mutations.

13. No new species have been produced.

14. Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.

To name only fourteen of the twenty-seven. So creationist do revise their theories (even if one unmentionable refuses to).

TQ: I point out your ignorance in stating that Carbon dating was used to arrive at the age of the earth, and you ignore it.  You then go on to state that it doesn't matter what dates are given from what methods, if it's not 6K years, it's wrong.  And you honestly expect us to take any "science" from you seriously after a statement like that?

The rest is pseudo religous nonsense that any true christian would shake their head at, and as such is not worth bothering with

He was only stating his prepropositions clearly, he doesn't have anything to hide. You, on the other hand will never admit your pressuppositions. That, as Brother Darwin has pointed out many times, is the difference between creationists and many evolutionists.



References

1. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4075.asp

2. Book cited was edited by Sharman Stone, Heinemann Educational Books, Melbourne, 1974.

3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

(Edited by Young Earth Toad 4/12/2004 at 7:36 PM).


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 7:17 PM on April 12, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

More evidence that diamonds are no more than thousands of years old:

Diamonds-in a day!

Did you know that contrary to what most of us were taught in schools, diamonds don't take millions of years to form-they can form in just one day!

Researchers have now made diamonds by reacting carbon dioxide with metallic sodium in a pressurized oven, and the temperature is only 440º C- and at just 800 atmospheres of pressure.

And you know what? It only took 12 hours to complete the process! Other methods take just days and weeks.

At least a dozen different companies are now making synthetic diamonds. They're almost impossible to distinguish from the ones found naturally. And yet, geologists still claim that it takes nature millions of years to form diamonds.

Sadly, many Christian leaders accept evolutionary ideas like this, and attempt to re-write Scripture to accommodate an old age for the earth. It's a dangerous undermining of biblical authority.

Bottom line: if under the right conditions it's possible that diamonds can be made in a very short period of time in the lab, then this is also possible in nature. Here's another example of real science supporting a young earth!


Excerpted from the 19 April broadcast of Answers ... with Ken Ham, now heard on more than 680 stations worldwide. For more listings, visit www.answersingenesis.org/radiolog


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 7:52 PM on April 12, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: Oh please, the bible says the earth is unmoving, it says the earth is flat, it says leprosy can be cured with pigeons blood and incantations, it says true believers can be unaffected by venomous snake bites and toxic poisons, it says insects have four legs, it says rabbits chew cud, the list goes on and on.

Please explain how the Bible states these things, particularly the earth being flat. If you do study your Bible, you would know about this verse:

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."

It obviously states that the earth is a circle, and that it is stretching out like a curtain, which is particularly supported by the observation of red shifts.

Demon38: And just as every biological organization on earth supports evolution, every geological organization on earth will tell you the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

But you overlook some very startling admissions from some of the main organizations propagating evolution and a 4.5 billion years old earth:

Bengston, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), pp. 765-766. Bengston is at the Paleontology, Uppsala University, Sweden.

p. 765 "Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat."

p. 765 "If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominate actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."

There you have it, straight from the Journal Nature.

Demon38: But you're a creationist, your mental faculties are already in question!

But you're a evolutionist, your mental faculties are already in question!

Demon38: Life changes, thats a fact.

You state that as though Im supposed to be impressed. Although, you should be informed that no legitimate creationist will dispute this.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 8:33 PM on April 12, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So what you are saying is you let a humanistic religous organization undermine the Bibles authority in your life.  Not surprising in the least that you rejected the Bible under those circumstances.

Nope, I realized even then that the Bible wasn't a book of science or history, it's message concerned other truths.

It does?  Can you show me where it says these things?  The Bible can be misinterpreted as can anything else.  It is clear you haven't actually done much reading of the Bible, but (again) rely on what someone else has told you about it - the same as you have done with evolution.

The earth being immovable:
"1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
"Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
"Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
"Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Flat earth, from here:flatearth
"Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat."

According to the Bible, the earth is unmoving and flat, this is wrong.

Look up the rest yourself, in another post I mentioned these, they are out there but I proved my point above.

If you would exercise your own brain and follow his work to a logical conclusion (instead of allowing everyone else to tell you what to think) you might realize that his work lays the principle groundwork for genetics.  It is because of the principles of his work, that we can make the claims we do.

You continue to dodge the issue!  You won't or can't tell me why Mendel disproves evolution.
You have to tell us where Mendel talks about mutations and how he says they can't produce new attributes.  On the other hand, genetics fits in perfectly well with the theory of evolution.  In fact heredity is a prediction of evolution.  You say to follow his work to it's logical conclusion, well, it's obvious conclusion is that traits are passed down from parents to offspring thru genes.  Since Mendel says nothing about mutation, he did no experiments with mutation, how does Mendelian genetics disprove evolution?  And since other scientists continued his work and showed how it also works with mutations, this supports the theory of evolution!  It is part of the Modern Synthesis.  You have NOT explained your point at all, and it seems you don't understand evolution or genetics when you make ignorant statements like this!

The fact that I have presented evidence against million/billion years origin history using both biology and geology should give you enough information to logically deduce that this statement is entirely false.

What evidence???  Over 44 different radiometric dating techniques all concurr that the earth is billions of years old.  We see that the earth is extremely old from lake varve counts, ice core samples, tree ring counts, fossil reef dating.  All these dating techniques concurr!  You haven't even come close to disproving them and you have yet to show us any evidence for a young earth!  What have you shown us that supports a young earth????

As the new ocean floors cooled, they would have become denser and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents. The deepening of the ocean basins and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land.

The collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, especially toward the end of the flood.


This is not reality!  The ocean floor did not sink, you and your sources are making this up!
And you still haven't accounted for the great heat that would have been produced!  Guess you can't!  Pangea took about 200 million years to break apart and move into it's present positions, if it did this in 6000 years the heat produced would have boiled away the oceans!  You can not account for this under a creationist model, it simply could not have happened!  You can ignore reality all you want, but don't tell me that's the way it happened, I know better.

Except for the fact that it's not as strict as you think.  There are fossils penetrating many layers. This means that many varves must have formed before the organism had a chance to rot. Operational science shows that fish break down in days even when protected from oxygen and scavengers.

Nope, your wrong!  Polystrate fossils were explained decades ago, they are no problem for evolution, the fact that you don;'t understand them is your problem.  And as to out of place fossils being discovered, all you have to do is give us one documented example...But you can't because there are none!  And AIG is just a lousy source of information!  It even says in the article that they can't determine what the prints are!  No, this is no proof, why don't you go back to the Paluxy prints...

Also - regarding red blood cells found in t-rex bones - it is true.  Some guys from the University of Montana found it and put it under a microscope.  M. Schweitzer and I. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 55–57, June 1997.

No it's not true, just goes to show how easily duped you are.  From here:dinoblood

"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells, although a chemical stain that recognizes DNA picked up something in the holes where the bone cells would have rested.
But she said she had been unable to retrieve DNA that could be identified as originating in a dinosaur."

NO blood cells found...

" Dr. Schweitzer said that the lightly mineralized state of the dinosaur was unusual but far from unique and that she believed that molecular evidence might be preserved in fossils more commonly than thought. "

So this was fossilized.  The fact that we might be able to recover DNA from millions of years in the past is hardly evidence against evolution!

By your definition of "falsified" I would have to say that evolution has been disproven many times over.
About it being the ONLY theory that explains everything - this is entirely erroneous.


The theory of evolution has NOT been falsified and scientists have been trying for 150 years.  You, with your silly bible myths, certainly haven't been able to falsify it and you can produce no real consensus of scientists that make this claim, you  are the one who is fighting against reality and are seriously delusional.

I am not disputing the validily of life changing.  I am disputing the validity of evolution as a fact.  You said evolution was a fact.  Well, facts don't change.  You agree that evolution has changed.

If life changes, that is evolution, that is a fact!  The theory of evolution explains the mechanisms of this change, as our understanding of these mechanisms becomes more clear, as more evidence is found, the theory of evolution will become more and more precise.  But the fact remains, the theory of evolution is the ONLY unfalsified scientific explaination for the diversity of life on earth.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:05 PM on April 12, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It does?  Can you show me where it says these things?  The Bible can be misinterpreted as can anything else.  It is clear you haven't actually done much reading of the Bible, but (again) rely on what someone else has told you about it - the same as you have done with evolution.

Flat earth: From http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”

Leprosy:
http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=II+Kings+5:1-27
I'm not sure where demon got the pigeon blood thing ( I did find where you are to give an offering of a dead pigeon and a live one in Leviticus 14), but I think it's safe to assume that dunking in a river 7 times would not cure leprosy.
Poisons-http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MARK+16&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on
16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

four legged insects and cud chewing rabbits-http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LEV+11&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on
5 The coney, [1] though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

The fact that I have presented evidence against million/billion years origin history using both biology and geology should give you enough information to logically deduce that this statement is entirely false.

But you haven't.  You've given us what you want to believe, with absolutely no evidence to back you up other than your assertion that what you don't believe is wrong.  If I have missed it, please, in a new thread, list the evidences from biology and geology that support creationism.  And I don't mean problems you have with the ToE, I mean actual evidences supporting your view
If that were the only means by which the mountain rose, I might agree with you.  AiG puts it this way -

What you don't seem to realize is that what you and AiG are proposing would produce an immense amount of heat, vaporising the oceans.
There are fossils penetrating many layers. This means that many varves must have formed before the organism had a chance to rot. Operational science shows that fish break down in days even when protected from oxygen and scavengers.

Polystrate fossils were explained years ago:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=polystrate+fossils&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
As for your fish example, why do you think that fossils are so rare?  Fossils are only formed under certain conditions.

Behemoth has nothing to do with this discussion, but here you go:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711.html
dinosaurs and humans-I'll quote from the article you never read, which you yourself posted:
Note: This article is a factual account of a genuine, sober report in the Russian newspaper. However, one needs to be cautious about accepting the prints described on the basis of just this report. None of our sources has been able to obtain any further information on the prints, nor any photograph to this date. It is presented for the information of readers, and to show how these particular evolutionists interpreted evidence which seemed to contradict the whole concept.

So, AiG says the report is unsubstantiated.


Also - regarding red blood cells found in t-rex bones - it is true.  Some guys from the University of Montana found it and put it under a microscope.  M. Schweitzer and I. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 55–57, June 1997.

You obviously never read the article I posted refuting this, as Schweitzer and Staedter were interviewed for it, and they stated that they never found red blood cells:
Nonetheless, Schweitzer and Staedter clearly stated in the very first print column -

Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes. [pg: 55]

However, they are categorically clear in the conclusion of the article where they state -

But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues." [Schweitzer and Staedter 1997 pg. 57]

They have clearly stated they could not even assert that there were residual blood products, but Wieland falsely claimed Schweitzer asserted there were actual cells. The lack of permineralization (the infilling of the intravascular spaces with minerals, and recrystalization of the bone mineral itself) is the reason that Schweitzer could loosely refer to the bone as "not completely fossilized" in The Real Jurassic Park. Wieland grossly exaggerates this as "unfossilized". [1997: pg. 42]

Even had Wieland merely read the New York Times as of June 10, 1997 he could have learned that -

Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells, although a chemical stain that recognizes DNA picked up something in the holes where the bone cells would have rested.

But she said she had been unable to retrieve DNA that could be identified as originating in a dinosaur. She and her colleagues had better luck in looking for heme, the oxygen carrying part of the hemoglobin molecule of the blood. [Wade 1997]

Read the article
I am not disputing the validily of life changing.  I am disputing the validity of evolution as a fact.  You said evolution was a fact.  Well, facts don't change.  You agree that evolution has changed.

You still don't get it do you?  Would you agree that there is such a thing as gravity?  Newton "discovered" it right?  Except Einstein came along and completely changed the Theory of Gravity.  Does this mean that gravity is not a fact?  No.  It means the theory had to be fine tuned to better fit new knowledge and observations.  That is the way science works

I have read the entire Bible through 5 times... it says nothing of the earth being flat, I assure you.

You may want to crack it again, as I had to look up some passages for you

Like all your other "facts" and "evidences" for evolution, this argument is based on an entirely false assumption:  
Young Earth Scientists Alive Today

How many of these "scientists" have published papers in peer reviewed journals lately?  None?  Wow, surprising.
The Theory of Evolution is in the prophecy business is it?

Yes, just as any proper scientific theory is
Again, my point is not to point out what a racist Darwin was (which he was) or how much evolution has contributed to racism (which it has), but that evolution is not a fact.  It is a theory.  Once with many revisions and changes.  Demon has indicated his belief that the framework of evolution is an absolute fact that can be relied upon for interpreting scientific data.  My intention was to show him examples where this concept has already failed.

As I said, he was no more a racist than anyone was at that time, just as you are no more a racist than anyone at this time.  Evolution is a scientific fact.  If that fact is abused, it is no more the fault of the Theory than the abuse of religion is by the KKK, Hitler, or any other religous nut.  Evolution is a fact, but there is some debate over the exact principles which govern it.  There is absolutely no doubt that evolution occurs
Where the Bible touches on history it is accurate.  Where the Bible touches on science, it is true.

I think I already proved this assertion wrong at the beginning of this post
Have you ever put a few kinds of sedment in a large jar, filled it with water, mixed it up, then turned it on end and watched as the layers formed?  It's pretty cool.  After it all settles you end up with a "distinct selective arrangement of strata".

Yes, it is pretty cool, and not at all what we find in nature.  Please explain how your little example here explains the actual assortment of strata we find, with conglomerates and brecchia often found on top of slate and sandstone, etc.
Regarding cave drawings, etc - Linky

I like this one:
In certain habitats lichens may reach their final size only after several thousand years.

So, how do they know this?  All the lichen colonies would have been wiped out in the flood, right?
Ica stones-
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2843/1_27/95501870/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958/weekly/weekly56.htm
Christians must recognize that the Ica Stone evidence for what it is -- doubtful and worthy of rejection wholesale.

want more?  Just ask
So, what you are telling me is that the ToE is absolute truth?  That all facts must be made to line up with the ToE?

Evolution is a fact.  The ToE is a group of ideas that interpret this fact: From talk origins

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.




(Edited by TQ 4/12/2004 at 11:49 PM).

(Edited by admin 4/13/2004 at 09:39 AM).


-------
"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: 11:18 PM on April 12, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first off, diamonds in a day:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1054100.htm

Need to have another diamond to do it with, not to mention plasma.  I have to assume this is what you were talking about, since once again there is no source for the claims.
This is much to young for uniformitarianism. Although, 100 million years is a young earth compared to 4.5 / 4.6 billion years. Keep in mind that this was considered an upper limit, not the actual age. That evidence alone indicates an earth much younger than 4.5 billion years.


From Talk origins:
In 1862 Kelvin estimated the age of the Earth to be 98 million years, based on a model of the rate of cooling. This was a minimum acceptable age consistent with geology. Later in 1897 he revised his estimate downwards to 20-40 million years. This was too short for the geologists to swallow. Estimates of the age of the Sun were also too small to be consistent with geology.

Kelvin did not know about radioactivity and heating of the Earth's crust by radioactive decay; for this reason his estimates were completely wrong. Likewise, it wasn't until Einstein's theory of relativity was developed that there was a good explanation of how the Sun could have been shining as long as it had.

So Kelvin was wrong, as were many early estimates.
It is first good to acknowledge before pointing to Darwin for racism, that it existed long before modern evolutionary theory. Likewise, there are strong links to racism that can be traced to evolution.

Evolution has been abused, as has religion.  It is not the fault of either.
I have already refuted Demon38's claims about heat. The flow of heat out of the earth is strongly correlated locally with the amount of radioactivity in the near surface rocks. This indicates that the surface heat flow is dominated by the radioactive heat production in these rocks. However, the quantity of radioactive heat production even in highly radioactive granitic rock appears to be insufficient to produce the observed patterns of surface heat flow if one assumes current decay rates over a period of just a few thousand years.

I don't think you understand.  What is being proposed would produce heat as a byproduct, enough heat to vaporise the oceans.
And why are the contact points smooth showing little or no erosion, but yet they intervals between the layers are supposed to be atleast 10 million years worth? This is evidence for a flood that I have yet to get a straight answer for- Im still waiting.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what you're talking about.  This is about the fourth time I've asked you to detail your claim, and I'm still waiting
I totally agree. Infact, there have been many creationist theories that have been shot down and revised (despite the fact that "Dr" Hovind still uses them). AiG published a list of arguments creationists should not use at all, or have since been revised.

None of these are theories.  They are arguments against evolution which have been refuted time and time again.
He was only stating his prepropositions clearly, he doesn't have anything to hide. You, on the other hand will never admit your pressuppositions.

OK, I'll admit my "presuppositions" right now.  My "presupposition" is that what has been observed, tested, verified, and can be falsified (but has yet to be), can be considered true.  As new evidence is acquired, my presupposition will tell me to accept it.  Clear enough for you?

But you overlook some very startling admissions from some of the main organizations propagating evolution and a 4.5 billion years old earth:
 We have an admission that paleontologists often reconstruct a creature based on less than the whole skeleton.  Big surprise.  As new evidence is acquired, the view is corrected.  We also have an admittance that the Cambrian explosion shows an amazing diversification of life.  Wow.  Tell me this:  Why do we only find many of these phyla in this time period?   Did Noah not take them on the ark with him?








-------
"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: 11:39 PM on April 12, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It obviously states that the earth is a circle, and that it is stretching out like a curtain, which is particularly supported by the observation of red shifts.

The Bible supports red shift????BWHAHAHAAA!!
Geez, now that's funny!  Yes it obviously states the earth is a circle, and we all know a cirlce is FLAT.

But you overlook some very startling admissions from some of the main organizations propagating evolution and a 4.5 billion years old earth:

What startling admissions from the main organizations???  All you presented was one man's opion with nothing to back it up and it's 14 years out of date!  And creationists are infamous for misquoting and taking quotes out of context, so I would need to see the context in which these quotes were made.

p. 765 "If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominate actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."

There you have it, straight from the Journal Nature.


Despite the fact that this quote is also 14 years out of date, where does it go against any evolutionary ideas????  Baffling and puzzling to Darwin, it isn't quite so baffling or puzzling to us.  We know quite a bit more than Darwin about multicellular life arising.  Now, you throw this out there like it proves something, but it's not clear, what does it prove?

You state that as though Im supposed to be impressed.

Life changes, that's evolution.  The theory of evolution explains it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:49 AM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It obviously states that the earth is a circle, and that it is stretching out like a curtain, which is particularly supported by the observation of red shifts.

The Bible supports red shift????BWHAHAHAAA!!
Geez, now that's funny!  Yes it obviously states the earth is a circle, and we all know a cirlce is FLAT.


This is a perfect example of degrading the message of the Bible by adding to 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: 11:18 AM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon: ... Bible ... concerned other truths.

What truths does the Bible speak of?  I would like to know your impression/thoughts.

Demon: the earth being immovable

Had you (or rather the page you borrowed your information from) actually done any research or study whatsover, you would know that the Hebrew word used for fixed or firm in these verses (kuwn) actually means "to establish" or "to make ready" or "to prepare", which is exactly what God did when he created the earth.  The Hebrew word for moved in this verse litterally means "removed" or "dislodged" or "decay".

So the verses literally mean "He has established the earth, and it won't be removed".  It is pretty obvious you didn't research those verses at all before you posted them.  You just took someone's word for it.

Demon:  flat earth

This is a far stretch, even if it was litterally translated the way it sounds.  Other translations say "Again, the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory."  or "Next the Devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him the nations of the world and all their glory."

Furthermore, in the original translation you used (devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world) the word ALL used in referring to all the kingdoms of the world is the Greek word "pas".  When used to refer to a collective group, it literally means "some of all types".  So the verse litterally means he showed Jesus some of all types of kingdoms, and the glory they had.

Again, its not very hard to research these things.  I recommend you do so before posting scripture.

Demon: You won't or can't tell me why Mendel disproves evolution.

I have responded in a way that actually makes you use your brain.  Perhaps therein lies my mistake.  Let try to spell it out for you.

At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation.

Punnett later used Mendels work to mathmatically show the relationship that Mendel demonstrated.  How dominant and recessive genes are passed to offspring.  According to Punnett's math, based on Mendel's work, you can genetically "loose" information.  

For example, if you have a Mutt dog (a mixture of many breeds) you can selectively breed it by breeding with a purebread so that you get a purebread dog within 7 generations .  On the other hand - you cannot take 2 pure bread dogs, lets say two german shepherds, and breed them and get a cocker spaniel puppy.  If you DO get a cocker spaniel puppy, what can you safely assume?  That the parents were not pure bread, and there were cocker spaniel genes present.  Not only is this 'common sense', but it is the gist of Mendel's work.

This is a far cry from Darwin's theories, and a far cry from modern evolution's insistance that new "breeds" or species come from random mutations.  In fact, it is by natural selection that existing genes are isolated in a group.

Demon:  What evidence??? ... tree ring counts ...

So you got a lot of trees with millions of rings on them do you?  

Demon: Over 44 different radiometric dating techniques all concurr that the earth is billions of years old.

Every one of which requires some unobservable assumptions to be made, most of which are based on other unobservable assumptions.

Demon:  What have you shown us that supports a young earth????

This is getting rediculous.  I am reminded of a few verses -
Pro 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.
Pro 13:16 Every prudent [man] dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open [his] folly.
Pro 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not [in him] the lips of knowledge.
Pro 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: [and] he that shutteth his lips [is esteemed] a man of understanding.
Pro 29:9 [If] a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, [there is] no rest.

Between Young Earth Toad and myself we have shown you mounds of evidence supporting a young earth.  You responded to those posts, yet you paid no attention whatsoever to the fact that we presented evidence.  Then you say "what have you shown?".  It is amazing to me that you have participated in this conversation only to come so far and realize you didn't hear a single thing we said.

{{{{Big breath}}}}

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
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
13. The continents are eroding too quickly.
14. Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.
15. Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all (coal formations, diamonds, stalactites and stalagmites, opals, etc).

The most convincing evidence for me, however, is the Bible.  It makes it very clear (without any room for millions of years) that the earth can be no more than ~ 6000 years old.

Here is a snippet from AiG's site on radiometric dating methods:

     
Facts:
1. ALL dating methods (including ones that point to thousands, not billions of years) are based on assumptions—beliefs, no matter how reasonable-sounding, that you can’t prove, but must accept by faith. For example:

     -Assuming how much of a particular chemical was originally present;
-Assuming that there has been no leaching by water of the chemicals in or out of the rock;
-Assuming that radioactive decay rates have stayed the same for billions of years, and more. [/tab]

2. Radiometric ‘dating’ labs do not measure age—they measure amounts of chemicals, then from this they infer age, based on the underlying assumptions.

3. When the assumptions are tested by measuring rocks of known age—e.g. recent lava flows—they often fail miserably.

4. Objects of the same age, tested by different methods, have been shown to give ‘dates’ varying by a factor of a thousand.

5. The fact that there is some consistency to radiometric dates is explained in part by the tendency to publish only data consistent with the ‘evolutionary age’ already ‘established’ by fossils. Most radioactive dating laboratories prefer you to tell them what age you expect. It is hard to see why this would be necessary if these were ‘absolute’ methods. The entire geological ‘millions of years’ system was largely in place, based on the philosophical assumptions of men like Charles Lyell and James Hutton, before radioactivity was even discovered. Where a radioactive date contradicts the ‘system’, it is invariably discarded.

6. If a ‘radiometric’ date and a ‘fossil’ (evolutionary) date conflict, the radiometric date is always discarded.

There are many other solid reasons for not accepting fallible man-made methods, such as radioactive ‘dating’, as an authority in opposition to the clear testimony of God’s infallible Word
[/tab]

All of this is just the tip of the ice burg.  As Young Earth Toad has also mentioned, there is evidence in the GrandCanyon, and pretty much everywhere else.

Demon: And you still haven't accounted for the great heat that would have been produced!

Young Earth Toad gave a perfectly good account for this.  Of course you completely ignored it and pretended he didn't (in true evolutionist fashion ;p )

Demon: And as to out of place fossils being discovered, all you have to do is give us one documented example...But you can't because there are none!

Liar!  I have given you 15 reasons for a young earth, and you dismissed those!  Now you infer your mind would be changed by one piece of evidence?  Not hardly.  But because you insist, we shall run a scientific experiment of our own - I will give you one and see if it makes a difference - Clicky

The theory of evolution has NOT been falsified and scientists have been trying for 150 years.  You, with your silly bible myths, certainly haven't been able to falsify it and you can produce no real consensus of scientists that make this claim, you  are the one who is fighting against reality and are seriously delusional.

If you notice, which you appearantly didn't, I was responding to you in saying that creation was "proven" false.  My point being that there has been more "proof" to revise the theory of evolution than to revise the creationists theory in the last 150 years.  In fact, many early "proofs" that "disproved" creation were false or incorrect (such as piltdown man) and have been proven to be a hoax or false.

Demon: But the fact remains, the theory of evolution is the ONLY unfalsified scientific explaination for the diversity of life on earth.

Actually, you're wrong there still.  Creationism continues to thrive regardless of the monopolistic hold the humanistic theory of evolution has on the public education systems all around the wolrd.  If we use Evolution as an analogy, creation should have died via natural selection 200 years ago.  But it hasn't!  And today, it's theories and models are just as strong as those in evolution.  

TQ: Flat earth: From http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

That has to be the most rediculous cult I have ever seen.  Wow.  They take everything out of context... use the wrong hebrew words... it's amazing the level of idiocy on that page.  

For example, they use a pagin King's dream of seeing everything in the world from a high place as "evidence that the Bible says the earth is flat".  This is so rediculous I can hardly keep from chuckling.  First of all - it's a dream.  Second of all - it's a pagin king.  That king told Daniel that he was god and that Daniel should worship him as such too - should we then assume the Bible supports worshipping Babylonian kings?  

TQ: leprosy, pigeon blood

It was the disobedience of Adam whereby death and sin entered the world.  In the beginning, before the fall of man, there was no death.  There was no disease.  Why?  Because in the presence of God these things can't exist.  He is life.  He is the sustainer of life.  When Adam fell death occured.  Death in the Bible is literally defined as separation from God.  In actuality it is separation from the eternal sustaining aspect of God.  These came about because of the fall - because of Adam's disobedience to not eat fruit from the one tree.  Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.  It was rather the obedience of the man with leprosy that healed him, not the specific actions he performed.  God is all about covenants.  If you do this, I will do that.  

TQ: Poisons

There is the account where Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake and did not die or even get sick.  I have personally witnessed many healings where people laid their hands on other people prayed and the person was healed.  The Bible doesn't say go out of your way to prove you are who you say you are and play with snakes.  In fact, quite the opposite.   Matthew 16 says: "1The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
2He replied,[1] "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' 3and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away."

Cud chewing rabbits

The Bible uses the hebrew word "shephan" which is litterally translated "rock badger, coney, or hyrax".

A hyrax has 2 stomachs  An ancient offshoot from the ungulates; once numerous with species as large as horses, they are reduced now to a few small species (to 600 mm) in Africa.  Teeth reduced; canines absent and cheek teeth ungulate-like.  Upper incisors rodent-like.  Two chambered stomach, long intestine, and 3 large caeca.  Short ears and tail.  hyrax
(come on man - even the bible gateway page you linked to had the footnote that this was not referring to a regular rabbit)

TQ: four legged insects

The Hebrew word for insects owph literally means "flying creatures - insects, birds, fowl".  In other translations it actually says fowl.

Also, in the interest of science, it is important to point out that that our current animal classifications were not know to the writers here.  Also, there are many many species that have gone extinct since the writing of that passage.  Just because we may not see an animal today that matches a particular description, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  As a matter of fact, there is good evidence in the Bible to suggest that they knew of and witnessed dinosaurs.  

He is written record (aka evidence) of people seeing dinosaurs, yet evolutionists dismiss it simply because it is part of the Bible.

TQ: talk origins link about behemouth

It's so funny when an evolutionist tries to interpret the Bible.  Job 40:19 (in the continuation of the explaination of behemoth) says that he is the Cheif of all that God made.  He made dinosaurs on day 6 just like he make any other "land animals".  The word "cheif" is the hebrew word re'shiyth meaning first, beginning, or oldest.  What is the largest land animal known to man?  Brobably a brontosaurus.  A brontosaurus would certainly have a tail as big as a tree.

For more really cool info read Dinosaurs

TQ: How many of these "scientists" have published papers in peer reviewed journals lately?  None?  Wow, surprising

How many creation oriented journals do you read?  None?  Wow, surprising.  How many evolution based journals post evidence in contradiction to evolution?  None?  Wow, surprising.

Apoapsis: This is a perfect example of degrading the message of the Bible by adding to it

And you know this because you've actually read the Bible through?  My guess is no.  I would challenge you to do so.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:19 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20 posted:
And you know this because you've actually read the Bible through?  My guess is no.


Wrong, as is most everything else you posted.


-------
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: 5:36 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis: Wrong, as is most everything else you posted.

How compelling! You didn't specifically show how he was wrong. So I naturally assume you cannot.

TQ: How many of these "scientists" have published papers in peer reviewed journals lately?  None?  Wow, surprising

Peer Review


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 5:44 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you got a lot of trees with millions of rings on them do you?

No, we have tree ring sequences, which correlate quite nicely with other dating techniqes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG010.html
Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 13,000 years [Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986]. A worldwide cataclysm during that time would have broken the tree ring record.


Every one of which requires some unobservable assumptions to be made, most of which are based on other unobservable assumptions.

Wrong again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit
also check out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
CD001-003

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast:
Question 7: A problem well known in the study of galaxy dynamics, and called the winding dilemma. It turns out that the dilemma pretty much vanishes once you recognize that the spiral arms are not made up of a spiral pattern of moving stars, but rather a spiral pattern that moves through the stars, as a density wave. It is also evident that spiral galaxies do not in fact retain the spiral shape over billions of years, which also dulls the edge of the creationist argument.

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
Oort Cloud and Kuiper belt, which have been observed and/or proven with mathematical calcualations.
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
Uh, plate tectonics?  Subduction?
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof24
5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
6.Many strata are too tightly bent
Take a geology course.  This is inane, and I already explained it you.  Over millions of years of constant, slight pressure, rock can deform without breaking, cracking, etc.
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
Need more info.  What are you talking about here?
8.Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years
nonsense, but it does demonstrate your ignorance of radiometric dating, again
9.Helium in the wrong places
Again, more info?  If you're speaking of YET's report he submitted, it's anomalous data from an incomplete study that was done under suspicous circumstances.
10.Not enough stone age skeletons
so, you go on to say how we shouldn't find skeletons unless they are rapidly buried under sediment, then as a criticism of evolution, you say there aren't enough fossils?  If the flood was true, we should be digging up bones by the bucketload!  But we aren't, are we?  Take your pick, you can't have it both ways, either there are too many fossils, or too little.  Which is it?
11.Agriculture is too recent
How so?
12.History is too short
How so?
13.The continents are eroding too quickly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof15
14. Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.
And?  Most fossils were formed by being covered by sediment.
15. Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all (coal formations, diamonds, stalactites and stalagmites, opals, etc).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof22
Coal formation?  I assume you are talking about Mt. St. Helens:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html
as for opals, diamonds, etc.  I assume you mean under lab conditions, and even if not, this proves a young earth how?
The most convincing evidence for me, however, is the Bible.  It makes it very clear (without any room for millions of years) that the earth can be no more than ~ 6000 years old.

And that is proof of nothing.  The Hindu holy book says the earth is billions of years old.  Why is the christian book more right than theirs?

The saddest part is these are lifted almost word for word from hovind, a creationist even other creationists shy away from, and have all been refuted years ago:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

Young Earth Toad gave a perfectly good account for this.  Of course you completely ignored it and pretended he didn't

No, he didn't, as he misunderstood what was being said.

I will give you one and see if it makes a difference - Clicky

Right back at you:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/yec_distortions_henke.htm

If you notice, which you appearantly didn't, I was responding to you in saying that creation was "proven" false.  My point being that there has been more "proof" to revise the theory of evolution than to revise the creationists theory in the last 150 years.

Technically, you are right, as creationism is no a theory, and can not be disproven as such.  It is religion.  The ToE on the other hand, is science pure and simple, and as such the theory is constantly revised to fit new evidence.  Remember my Newton/Einstein gravity example?  Or did you not read that either?

Creationism continues to thrive regardless of the monopolistic hold the humanistic theory of evolution has on the public education systems all around the wolrd.

Proving P.T. Barnum right: "There's a sucker born every minute."

A bunch of wordplay to avoid the evidence we provided that he asked for.  Question: if the bible is to be taken literally, then why is it so obtuse?  Why is it neccessary to reasearch ancient Hebrew and Greek words to come to an actual understanding?  Why were these words used in english translations if they are so wrong?

The Bible uses the hebrew word "shephan" which is litterally translated "rock badger, coney, or hyrax".

Look up coney.  Look up rock badger.  Neither of these chews its cud.  And I couldn't find a link that says the Hyrax does either (please provide if you have one)

The Hebrew word for insects owph literally means "flying creatures - insects, birds, fowl".  In other translations it actually says fowl

Then by all means, please provide me of the name of a four legged flying creature.  The only one  I can think of is the Gryphon.  Is this what god was referring to?  If so, why does he tell Moses it's ok to eat these four legged "fowl", then list off a bunch of insects?

More babble about how no one understands the bible but him...

How many creation oriented journals do you read?  None?  Wow, surprising.

Not peer reviewed journals, are they?
How many evolution based journals post evidence in contradiction to evolution?  None?  Wow, surprising.

How many actually meet the rigorous demands that science journals place on articles submitted for publication?  Or are you referring to the "satanist scientist" conspiracy theory?  Please explain how that's organised for me

And you know this because you've actually read the Bible through?  My guess is no.  I would challenge you to do so.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."  (Abraham Lincoln, 1809-65)

Words to live by Gup

YET:
How compelling! You didn't specifically show how he was wrong. So I naturally assume you cannot.

But I have


As for "peer review"
With the release of several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism), it is clear that RATE has made some fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area.

OK, let me be more specific:  Peer reviewed means "reviewed by scientists for science journals."  Creationism is not science, and creationists are not scientists, no matter how many letters they have behind their names.

















(Edited by TQ 4/13/2004 at 7:23 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: 6:54 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ:  I couldn't find a link that says the Hyrax does either (please provide if you have one)

I got my information from the following page from the University of Florida:

Hyrax

TQ, can you bring some of the arguments for your statements over to this forum - it's getting a little tedious to see the following:

see you're wrong:  link
see you're wrong:  link
see you're wrong:  link
see you're wrong:  link

Over and over....  I don't have the time to respond to 15 links.  Present an argument here and we'll discuss it.  Frankly, the talkorigins.org site is more propaganda then science.  I read the "evidences" on that site, and often it's inuendo, assumption, and millions of years frameword interpretations of ambiguous facts.  Not much real, substancial, or hard-core there.  As a matter of fact, in a large number of their responses, you don't find any actual "facts".  You only find pure interpretation.  

Just as an example (and in the interest of time - of which I have none), I'll respond to the first link you have to show you what I mean.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG010.html

Responses:

      1.  The age of the oldest living thing doesn't indicate dates of events happening before it. It merely shows that no global cataclysm happened less than 4900 years ago.

It does, however, provide evidence that there was a global cataclysm (aka flood) and isnt' it ineresting that most creationists put the flood at ~5000 years ago.  This response doesn't disprove the Bible or creation in any way.

     2.  Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 13,000 years [Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986]. A worldwide cataclysm during that time would have broken the tree ring record.

This is based on an assumption.  It assumes that the climate never changes.  In fact, had a global flood happend, weather patters would be effected tremendously.  In fact there are evidences that as little as 500-600 years ago there wasn't ice in antarctica (early maps from explorers, etc).  Global climate changes would skew these "tree riing" results.  Just look at the weather effects of el nino.... imagine that x 1 kajillion (global flood cataclysm).  

     3.  The King Clone creosote bush in the Mojave Desert is 11,700 years old.

Repeat of point 2 thrown in to make the evidence seem weightier.  It gets the same response as #2.  Also like to point out that both 2 and 3 are dated using Carbon dating.  

Lemme plagerize AiG some more -

It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old.  For instance, AiG has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and TJ.  In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data.  The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels.  This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.  (When one takes into account the likely much lower ratio of radioactive to ‘normal’ carbon pre-Flood, it brings it right down to within the biblical ‘ballpark’.)  

Interestingly, specimens which appear to definitely be pre-Flood seem to have C-14 present, too, and importantly, these cluster around a lower relative amount of C-14.   This suggests that some C-14 was primordial, and not produced by cosmic rays—thus limiting the age of the entire earth to only a few thousand years.

This latter suggestion about primordial C-14 appears to have been somewhat spectacularly supported when Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating.  It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.  

This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.

The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth.  And this age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past acceleration of radioactive decay.

C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’ specimens they measure still have C-14.  Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown.  But it is no problem or mystery at all if the uniformitarian/long-age assumptions are laid to one side and the real history of the world, given in Scripture, is taken seriously. The C-14 is there, quite simply, because it hasn’t had time to decay yet.  The world just isn’t that old!  

The C-14 results are an independent but powerful confirmation of the stunning helium-diffusion results.  2003 looks like going down as a bad year for megachronophiles (lovers of long ages), but a good year for lovers of the Word of God.

Postscript: In addition to the book expected in 2005 reporting the final results of the RATE project, the project expects to publish a book for laymen summarizing the project shortly thereafter.  Dr Don DeYoung will be the author.  He has written several popular books on creation science and has been on the RATE since its inception.  His grasp of the details of the project and his excellent writing skills should combine to produce a highly readable book for creationist laymen.






(Edited by Gup20 4/13/2004 at 11:17 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 8:30 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So the verses literally mean "He has established the earth, and it won't be removed".  It is pretty obvious you didn't research those verses at all before you posted them.  You just took someone's word for it.

Despite the way you twtist things, the earth will be removed eventually, so the verse is still wrong!

This is a far stretch, even if it was litterally translated the way it sounds.  Other translations say "Again, the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory."  or "Next the Devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him the nations of the world and all their glory."

Again you twist things all out of shape until you can justify them, but you failed to explain the tree at the center of the world.  No, it's obvious the bible talks of a flat earth and it's wrong, it's no book of science.

I have responded in a way that actually makes you use your brain.  Perhaps therein lies my mistake.  Let try to spell it out for
you.


And you still haven't shown where Mendel conducted experiments with mutations!  You still haven't shown where Mendel says that no new characteristics can arise.  You're making things up, Mendel never said these things, he never did any experiments on mutations, all your babbling means nothing!  

This is a far cry from Darwin's theories, and a far cry from modern evolution's insistance that new "breeds" or species come from random mutations.  In fact, it is by natural selection that existing genes are isolated in a group.

Darwin did not know about genes and inheritance, but the theory of evolution predicted that a mechanism would be found for passing on characteristics from generation to generation.  Mendel's work confirmed this, it supports evolution.  And of course the consensus of the scientific world is just that.  You can claim what ever you want, make up what ever you want, but you have proved nothing.

So you got a lot of trees with millions of rings on them do you?

On top of everything else, you don't understand dendochronology...

Every one of which requires some unobservable assumptions to be made, most of which are based on other unobservable assumptions.

And I keep asking you for what these assumptions are and the only one you could tell us about, the assumption of how much parent material was present, was wrong.  We don't need to know how much parent material was originally present, you are decidely wrong there.  So what other assumptions are you claiming we need to make?  You do know that using radio telescopes and mass spectrometers we can measure decay rates of isotopes from other stars.  So we can look back in time as it were to see what these decay rates were in the past.  We've looked at decay rates from 180,000 years in the past and they are the same as they are today.  No, you have completely failed to cast any doubt on radiometric dating.

Between Young Earth Toad and myself we have shown you mounds of evidence supporting a young earth.  You responded to those posts, yet you paid no attention whatsoever to the fact that we presented evidence.

None of what you have presented is real evidence.  Your entire list has shown to be wrong!  You are either very stupid or very dishonest to present it.  Look up the PRATT list
(Points Refuted a Thousand Times), your so called evidence isn't even worth looking at!  But I thank TQ for doing such a thourough job of demolishing it yet again...

Here is a snippet from AiG's site on radiometric dating methods:

Let me spell it out, AIG is worthless.  No reasonable person can take them seriously.  
If you want to debate science, use real science, not pseudo-scientific claptrap.

All of this is just the tip of the ice burg.  As Young Earth Toad has also mentioned, there is evidence in the GrandCanyon, and pretty much everywhere else.

No evidence in the Grand Canyon, that was shown conclusively, the Grand Canyon was NOT formed by a giant flood and it has been around for millions of years.  All geologic studies agree on this.

Young Earth Toad gave a perfectly good account for this.  Of course you completely ignored it and pretended he didn't (in true evolutionist fashion ;p )

Of course he didn't account for it!  You're lieing again!

Liar!  I have given you 15 reasons for a young earth, and you dismissed those!  Now you infer your mind would be changed by one piece of evidence?  Not hardly.  But because you insist, we shall run a scientific experiment of our own - I will give you one and see if it makes a difference - Clicky

Ha ha, still can't show me ONE out of place fossil!  Guess you lose that point, just like you've lost every point you've tried to make so far!

If you notice, which you appearantly didn't, I was responding to you in saying that creation was "proven" false.  My point being that there has been more "proof" to revise the theory of evolution than to revise the creationists theory in the last 150 years.  In fact, many early "proofs" that "disproved" creation were false or incorrect (such as piltdown man) and have been proven to be a hoax or false.

Liar!  No evidence has made the experts reconsider creationism!  It's still just a silly superstition, on a par with the greek myths or the Norse myths!  I know it galls you to no end, but reality is reality, all the experts say the world is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is real and there was no world wide flood.  The evidence still stands, and YEC's are still the lunatic fringe.

Actually, you're wrong there still.  Creationism continues to thrive regardless of the monopolistic hold the humanistic theory of evolution has on the public education systems all around the wolrd.  If we use Evolution as an analogy, creation should have died via natural selection 200 years ago.  But it hasn't!  And today, it's theories and models are just as strong as those in evolution.

Hahahaha!!!  self delusional to the end!  

It was rather the obedience of the man with leprosy that healed him, not the specific actions he performed.  God is all about covenants.  If you do this, I will do that.

Weasel away!  So it doesn't matter what actions you take, if you believe in God, he will save you????  What utter nonsense!  So your admitting that the treatment describe in the bible is irrelevent, that it isn't a scientific cure for leprosy?  Then I win, the bible isn't a book of science and you just proved it for me!

The Bible uses the hebrew word "shephan" which is litterally translated "rock badger, coney, or hyrax".

So this tranlation of the bible is wrong!  Then everything in it is in question...

How many creation oriented journals do you read?  None?  Wow, surprising.  How many evolution based journals post evidence in contradiction to evolution?  None?  Wow, surprising.

Read some creationist material, but it's so obviously wrong, so ignorantly incorrect, ignores facts, I have to agree with the experts, creationism is for the uneducated, the illiterate, the unintelligent.   How many evolutionist journals post evidence in ontradiction to evolution?  None?  Wow, that is surprising, kind of demonstrates just how strong a theory evolution really is!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:57 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd just like to pause a moment and point out that TQ is quoting PT Barnum.  

...


Don't know what to say about that....  It's like I am sitting here dazed by the power of the argument.  Wow.

Moving right along -

TQ: Why is it neccessary to reasearch ancient Hebrew and Greek words to come to an actual understanding?  Why were these words used in english translations if they are so wrong?

While the Bible is authored by God, it was translated by man.  I think you would agree that the early church of europe was over-powerful politically.  It's influence is often seen in the King James version translations.  It later years, there have been other translations sponsored by one denomination or another... each with the slant of that denomination.  To get the original intended meaning it's often good to go back to the original source.  

TQ: Then by all means, please provide me of the name of a four legged flying creature.

Pterodactyl  (sometimes referred to as Rhamphorhynchus

For pictures of this creature that walks on all fours click here.

This of course only adds to the evidence that there were dinosaurs at the same time as man.

Also, vampire bats walk on all fours.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:20 AM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It does, however, provide evidence that there was a global cataclysm (aka flood) and isnt' it ineresting that most creationists put the flood at ~5000 years ago.  This response doesn't disprove the Bible or creation in any way.

What evidence does it provide for a global cataclysm????  Oh, that's right, NONE!

This is based on an assumption.  It assumes that the climate never changes.  In fact, had a global flood happend, weather patters would be effected tremendously.  In fact there are evidences that as little as 500-600 years ago there wasn't ice in antarctica (early maps from explorers, etc).  Global climate changes would skew these "tree riing" results.  Just look at the weather effects of el nino.... imagine that x 1 kajillion (global flood cataclysm).

Wrong!  Environmental conditions are taken into account, still no evidence of a global flood though!

Repeat of point 2 thrown in to make the evidence seem weightier.  It gets the same response as #2.  Also like to point out that both 2 and 3 are dated using                   Carbon dating.

Wrong again!  And we all know that Carbon dating is very accurate when used correctly, so this date is accurate.  Other long lived organisms,  From here:Oldplant

"1997; King's Holly (Lomatia tasmanica) - found in the desert of Tasmania. Scientists estimated the age of the plant using a nearby fossil of an identical plant. It was found to be over 43,000 years old! "

"August, 1999; Box Huckleberry (Gaylussacia brachycera) - researchers in Pennsylvania have discovered a living plant that is a remnant of the last Ice Age. Using the known rate of growth if this self-sterile plant, they estimated that this 1/4-acre colony is over 13,000 years old."

"March, 2004; Eucalyptus recurva. Also known as "Mongarlowe Mallee" or "Ice Age Gum" it is the rarest Eucalypt in Australia or the world, and is known from only 5 individual specimens. Scientists in Australia are undertaking analyses to determine the exact age of one specimen that is estimated to be 13,000 years old."

Once again, don't bother with AIG, they're completely bogus, not worth reading, especially if you want reliable information.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:08 AM on April 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd just like to pause for a moment and point out that gup has yet to provide a valid point...

Then by all means, please provide me of the name of a four legged flying creature.

Pterodactyl  (sometimes referred to as Rhamphorhynchus

For pictures of this creature that walks on all fours click here.

Also, vampire bats walk on all fours.

Hmm, let's see.  I see two legs, and two arms adapted for flying.  Nope, not a four legged "fowl".

This of course only adds to the evidence that there were dinosaurs at the same time as man.


I'm simply stunned by this statement.  And you accuse evolutionists of making giant leaps with no supporting evidence?

TQ, can you bring some of the arguments for your statements over to this forum - it's getting a little tedious to see the following:

see you're wrong:  link
see you're wrong:  link
see you're wrong:  link
see you're wrong:  link

Over and over....  I don't have the time to respond to 15 links.  Present an argument here and we'll discuss it.

See, that's the thing about science.  You sometimes have to read to learn something (which you've already demonstrated you don't do).  If you want to make 15 different claims, I will refute the 15 different claims, and that takes actual information (studies, references, etc.)  I can't do it in neat little sound bites that the creationists like to do.

Frankly, the talkorigins.org site is more propaganda then science.  I read the "evidences" on that site, and often it's inuendo, assumption, and millions of years frameword interpretations of ambiguous facts.

Says the guy who plagarizes AiG unabashedly

It does, however, provide evidence that there was a global cataclysm

No, it doesn't.  It provides evidence that the tree was alive 4900 years ago.  That's it.  Please explain how a 4900 year old tree proves that there was a global flood.

This is based on an assumption.  

No, it isn't:
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
It assumes that the climate never changes.

No, it doesn't
In fact, had a global flood happend, weather patters would be effected tremendously.

In fact, if a global flood had happened, all the trees would have been killed!!!!
In fact there are evidences that as little as 500-600 years ago there wasn't ice in antarctica (early maps from explorers, etc).

I assume you're talking about the Piri Reis map:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM
Since you won't read it, here's the important part:
Thereafter, the Piri Reis Map drifts into the Twilight Zone. It shows South America swinging far to the east. Given that the map so far has done fairly well in latitude, we can be sure the coastline is not Antarctica. Also, if the map draws on ancient knowledge to show things no 16th century explorer would have known, why is the coastline continuous? So why isn't there open water between South America and "Antarctica?" You can't seize on an accidental resemblance to a couple of bumps on the coast of Antarctica and blithely ignore the failure to show the Drake Passage!

Most damning of all to the Antarctica interpretation is that the marginal notes refer to the coast in this region being discovered by Portuguese ships blown off course. One note refers to the land being "very hot," which probably rules out Antarctica. The Piri Reis Map itself explicitly says the information in this area came from European sources.


Global climate changes would skew these "tree riing" results.  Just look at the weather effects of el nino.... imagine that x 1 kajillion (global flood cataclysm).

Once again, they wouldn't be skewed, they'd be dead!

Also like to point out that both 2 and 3 are dated using Carbon dating.  

Which I'd like to point out is accurate when used correctly.

The rest is AiG garbage, until it can be assessed by actual scientists without a theological ax to grind.  Try again when that happens (which AiG will never allow)


(Edited by TQ 4/14/2004 at 02:52 AM).


-------
"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: 02:35 AM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm, let's see.  I see two legs, and two arms adapted for flying.  Nope, not a four legged "fowl".

As I stated, the hebrew means "flying creature, insect, bird, or fowl".  So the verse says "flying creature that walks on all fours".  It doesn't say "has 4 legs".  Indeed many variety of pterosaur used it's arms for walking.  As do some bats.  

[TQ: See, that's the thing about science.  You sometimes have to read to learn something (which you've already demonstrated you don't do).  If you want to make 15 different claims, I will refute the 15 different claims, and that takes actual information (studies, references, etc.)  I can't do it in neat little sound bites that the creationists like to do.[/i]

If you want me to start linking to all my arguments, I will - it would sure be easier than copying the relative information and pasting it over to this forum.  Obviously none of us are experts in the fields we are discussing here, or we would use OUR OWN work - which no one here has done (plagerizing from talkorigins and plagerizing from AiG, and from ICR).  

I have at least attempted to paraphrase and put in my own words many concepts that I have shared.  It demonstrates I understand (or in some cases try to understand) what I am talking about.  All that I ask is that you do the same.  Try to think rationally and critically about the information you present, and present your argument in your own words.  You can plagerize all you want - you can copy paste all you want - all I ask is that you at least try to think about the things you post instead of merely posting a link.  

I'd just like to pause for a moment and point out that gup has yet to provide a valid point...

... and I would like to point out that just because you don't agree with my points or understand them, that doesn't make them invalid.  In fact, many of my points HAVE provided evidence for a flood, and for creation.  You simply refuse to hear it or consider it's validity because it doesnt match up with your "hard party-line stance".

Says the guy who plagarizes AiG unabashedly

Which I do for your benefit, knowing full well you would not bother to consider or even read the information if I did not post it directly.  In being considerate for your time, I post the portions of those articles that are valid to our conversation - do you have a problem with that?  It's not like I am getting paid for this or asking to be published - or even requesting class credit.  I am simply presenting you with that which you say does not exist.

BTW - another reason that "I didn't read it" (the talk origins page) is that I went through every one of those pages THE FIRST time I posted that evidence and gave rebuttals.  You guys stated I had not posted ANY evidence.... so I re-posted the list of 15 again as a sort of "hello - remember these?"

Please explain how a 4900 year old tree proves that there was a global flood.

I didnt' say that it proves anything.  I said it provides evidence.  You were not there at the time of creation, I was not there.  We have to take the evidence we have IN THE PRESENT and use observational science of the things that are here today in the present to make educated guesses about the past.  In fact, we can't observe the past because none of us were there.  We can only observe things that are in the present.  Fossils, geology, etc - these the things we look at today to make estimatations about what happened in the past.

Once again, they wouldn't be skewed, they'd be dead!  

And you assume that they would never grow again over the last 5000 years?

In fact, trees underwater for extended periods of time will die, but they can stay there without rotting for centuries under water.  Seeds are still viable (given soil and climate conditions) for a very long time.

You guys argued like mad that the himalayas were once underwater explaining why marine fossils could be found.  As you can seehere, there are plenty of trees there now.  

You're argument that all the trees were dead during the last 5000 years of climate changing is therefore erroneous.

TQ: The rest is AiG garbage, until it can be assessed by actual scientists without a theological ax to grind.

Again you make a grand sweeping generalization and expect everyone to wilt and accept it - again, this may work with evolutionists, but it doesn't work with anyone who uses their own brain to arrive at conclusions.

Demon: Wrong!  Environmental conditions are taken into account, still no evidence of a global flood though!

It might take normal regional conditions into account,  however, in the case of a global flood, regional conditons would have been drastically different.  The climate following the flood would be abnormal for hundreds of years.  Also, the timetable for events would be dramatically different.

Demon:  We all know that carbon dating is very accurate...

"We all know" - this is your argument?  I will plagerize from AiG some more:

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1.  The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2.  Decay rates have always been constant.

3.  Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.



Now your turn to plagerize:

Demon: "1997; King's Holly (Lomatia tasmanica) - found in the desert of Tasmania. Scientists estimated the age of the plant using a nearby fossil of an identical plant. It was found to be over 43,000 years old! "

"August, 1999; Box Huckleberry (Gaylussacia brachycera) - researchers in Pennsylvania have discovered a living plant that is a remnant of the last Ice Age. Using the known rate of growth if this self-sterile plant, they estimated that this 1/4-acre colony is over 13,000 years old."

"March, 2004; Eucalyptus recurva. Also known as "Mongarlowe Mallee" or "Ice Age Gum" it is the rarest Eucalypt in Australia or the world, and is known from only 5 individual specimens. Scientists in Australia are undertaking analyses to determine the exact age of one specimen that is estimated to be 13,000 years old."


How are these fantastic estimations done?  Probably (we have to guess because Demon didn't show his work) radiometric dating.  The only proven thing about radiometric dating is that it can't be proven (since it is based on assumptions).

Demon: Once again, don't bother with AIG, they're completely bogus, not worth reading, especially if you want reliable information.

Besides the fact that this is another unsubstanciated generalization - how would you know?  You don't read it, or even attempt to understand it.  This is evidence by the fact that you claim there is no evidence whatsover for creation in the last 200 years.  This site is full of evidence - all of which you have chosen to ignore.

Of course - how could you flip flop AGAIN in regards to the Bible and evolution.  Your personal credibility is locked in to dogmatic evolutionism.  You've already indicated you switched sides early on.  And, might I add, having known NONE of what AiG has to say about creation or the Bible, you made this hasty decision and by golly you are going to stick with it come hell or high water.  Well, I got news for you, demon, the high water came already, 5000 years ago with Noah's flood... I let you measure your own eligability for hell against the standard of the Bible.

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:17 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup, you have yet to make a valid point.  You've posted your opinions, but there is absolutely no empirical data to back it up.

Which I do for your benefit, knowing full well you would not bother to consider or even read the information if I did not post it directly

Actually, I regularily go to AiG.  The total fraudulence of the site and the gall of "lying to save souls" astounds me.

so I re-posted the list of 15 again as a sort of "hello - remember these?"

And they still don't hold up.  Post them as many times as you'd like.

TQ:Please explain how a 4900 year old tree proves that there was a global flood.

Gup:I didnt' say that it proves anything.  I said it provides evidence.

Evidence that the tree was alive 4900 years ago.  That's all.

And you assume that they would never grow again over the last 5000 years?

In fact, trees underwater for extended periods of time will die, but they can stay there without rotting for centuries under water.

Do you know what dendrochronology is?  It's a dating method which uses tree rings.  Trees do not form new rings when they are dead!  They form one new ring per year, and these rings give indications of the growing conditions experienced by the tree (a good year=large ring, a bad year= small ring).  If the trees had been inundated by a global flood, they would have died (being underwater for a year does that)  Not too mention they would have been buried under the tons of sediment you insist was deposited during the global flood!

Seeds are still viable (given soil and climate conditions) for a very long time.

There was no soil though, only water, according to you!  Here's an experiment to prove what you are saying:  Take a few samples of plant seeds.  Soak them in saline water (pick a percentage of salinity, doesn't matter).  Leave them to soak in that for a year, then plant them in silt and gravel, and see how they grow.  Get back to me when you finish that.

there are plenty of trees there now.  

Your point?  There are plenty of trees where I live now, and this area used to be an inland sea.  Climates and topography change over time.  Antarctica used to be a lot warmer than it is now.  Has nothing to do with a global flood or anything else creationist.

It might take normal regional conditions into account,  however, in the case of a global flood, regional conditons would have been drastically different.  The climate following the flood would be abnormal for hundreds of years.  Also, the timetable for events would be dramatically different.

Exactly.  So where is the evidence of it?  As you've said, regional conditions have been examined in the past (ice cores and tree rings are useful for this) and there is no evidence for a global flood.  No interruption in tree rings back to 13000 years ago, no interruption in ice cores back to 160,000 in some places.

"We all know" - this is your argument?  I will plagerize from AiG some more:


This has been debunked time and time again.  I'm not repeating it

Besides the fact that this is another unsubstanciated generalization - how would you know?  You don't read it, or even attempt to understand it.

But it is substantiated, and I do read it.

Your personal credibility is locked in to dogmatic evolutionism.  You've already indicated you switched sides early on.  And, might I add, having known NONE of what AiG has to say about creation or the Bible, you made this hasty decision and by golly you are going to stick with it come hell or high water.  Well, I got news for you, demon, the high water came already, 5000 years ago with Noah's flood... I let you measure your own eligability for hell against the standard of the Bible.


YET, you asked where I got the impression that most creationists say "I'm right and you're going to hell!"?  Here you are.

Nice diatribe, BTW.  Offers nothing to an actual debate, but I bet you feel better now, don't you?





-------
"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: 4:56 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YET, you asked where I got the impression that most creationists say "I'm right and you're going to hell!"?  Here you are.


I recall seeing a list of the different stages of debating with creationists.

Threatening with hell  was the stage before
"I'll pray for you" and disappearing.



-------
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: 5:24 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Funny, that's the way I remember it going too


-------
"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: 5:26 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup, you have yet to make a valid point.  You've posted your opinions, but there is absolutely no empirical data to back it up.

And you have yet to give me a compelling argument to dissuade me from beliving in the Bible is absolute truth, or creation actually happened.

The total fraudulence of the site and the gall of "lying to save souls" astounds me.

Easy to see why you have a closed mind when it's so distorted by years of evolutionary religous belief.

You claim to be a person of science, yet it is clear you have no intention of ever looking at any evidence that doesn't support evolution objectively.

I have told you before that science confirms the Bible.  You scoff.  I have given you examples of creation evidence - you ignore it and say that I have never presented evidence.  I have logically explained my point of view, and you have dismissed it because I avow creation and the Bible instead of succumbing to the dominant world religion of humanism that is prevelant in the scientific community.  Make no mistake - evolution was created by religious humanists - and it exists today only to serve those who would try to explain the origin of man without God.  No branch of observational (non-origin-seeking) science would falter or miss a single step today if the scientific community in general accepted a 6000 year timeline instead of a 3.5 billion years.  Yet there is such an unwillingness to even consider the possibility.

They form one new ring per year

So it's impossible for trees to grow more than 1 ring per year?  More evidence that the evolutionists mind is indeed closed.

TQ: "I'm right and you're going to hell!"

Again, you post on this board in complete disagreement with the facts.  I am pretty sure I stated that Demon was the only one who could make the determination for himself.  His going to hell or not has absolutely nothing to do with me - it's entirely his decision to do what he wants with his own life.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 8:15 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And you have yet to give me a compelling argument to dissuade me from beliving in the Bible is absolute truth, or creation actually happened.

Ripping apart every argument you offer in support of creationism doesn't count?  (Notice how I said "argument" and not "evidence"?)

Easy to see why you have a closed mind when it's so distorted by years of evolutionary religous belief.


Poor me.  I'm brainwashed.

You claim to be a person of science, yet it is clear you have no intention of ever looking at any evidence that doesn't support evolution objectively.


I don't claim anything.  I do however know the difference between facts and BS.

I have told you before that science confirms the Bible.

So, if I tell you the moon is made of green cheese, does that mean it is?

I have given you examples of creation evidence - you ignore it and say that I have never presented evidence.

You've given me examples of fraud and lies, and I have exposed them as such, then asked for actual evidence (verifiable, testable, scientific evidence)

I have logically explained my point of view


Says the guy who thinks trees develop new rings when they are dead.

I avow creation and the Bible instead of succumbing to the dominant world religion of humanism that is prevelant in the scientific community.

Funny, I don't remeber anyone declaring themselves a humanist.  I seem to recall a few people demonstrating they are able to see past AiG's lies, but that's about it.

evolution was created by religious humanists

Um, no.  Evolution was "created' by organisms diversifying over time.  The ToE was created by organizing the data collected from many different branches of science.

and it exists today only to serve those who would try to explain the origin of man without God.

Then please explain the large number of theistic evolutionists to me.

No branch of observational (non-origin-seeking) science would falter or miss a single step today if the scientific community in general accepted a 6000 year timeline instead of a 3.5 billion years.


You can actually say that with a straight face?!?

Yet there is such an unwillingness to even consider the possibility.

Because absolutely none of the evidence supports such a possibility

So it's impossible for trees to grow more than 1 ring per year?

As far as I'm aware.  If I'm wrong, please show me evidence to the contrary.


I am pretty sure I stated that Demon was the only one who could make the determination for himself.  His going to hell or not has absolutely nothing to do with me - it's entirely his decision to do what he wants with his own life.

More flip flopping and word play:
Well, I got news for you, demon, the high water came already, 5000 years ago with Noah's flood... I let you measure your own eligability for hell against the standard of the Bible.

Seems pretty clear to me that you are telling demon that because he doesn't believe as you do, he has a good chance at damnation.

Nice post.  Once again, no facts.  At least you're consistent!










-------
"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: 8:57 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have told you before that science confirms the Bible.  You scoff.


What you offer is an exteme materialistic viewpoint based on your need for biblical inerrancy.   Force fitting a spiritual guide to produce physical answers merely degrades the message.


I have given you examples of creation evidence - you ignore it and say that I have never presented evidence.  I have logically explained my point of view, and you have dismissed it because I avow creation and the Bible instead of succumbing to the dominant world religion of humanism that is prevelant in the scientific community.


What you do is trot out nonsense that good Christian scientists disproved many decades ago.  

 
Make no mistake - evolution was created by religious humanists - and it exists today only to serve those who would try to explain the origin of man without God.


Wrong, many aspects were developed by Christian scientists.  Christianity has no problem with evolution, fundamentalism does.

No branch of observational (non-origin-seeking) science would falter or miss a single step today if the scientific community in general accepted a 6000 year timeline instead of a 3.5 billion years.


Wrong, western science was founded based on the belief that God was not deceitful in his creation.  Science as we know it would disappear if there was no assurance that the rules don't change arbitrarily.  If the world were made 6000 years ago with all of the evidence pointing to an old age, then there is no reason it couldn't have been made last Thursday with all of our memories intact.  Christians don't believe in a deceitful God, fundamentalists seem to require it.

 Yet there is such an unwillingness to even consider the possibility.


Every foundational aspect of science is challenged all the time.  That's how Nobel prizes are won.  

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/15/2004 at 1:10 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: 1:07 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Ripping apart every argument you offer in support of creationism doesn't count?

Perhaps your arguments just aren't that good.  I haven't seen my arguments "ripped apart".  I have seen a lot of desparate posts with evolutionary dogma that doesn't adere to observational science.

TQ: Poor me.  I'm brainwashed.

Well good for you.  Admitting you have a problem is a courageous fist step on your road to recovery.

TQ: I do however know the difference between facts and BS.

Well let me file that auspicious argument right under your quotes of PT Barnum.

TQ: Says the guy who thinks trees develop new rings when they are dead.

Yet, again you post on this board in complete opposite of the facts.  I asked you if trees could never produce more than one ring in a year.  How can anyone trust what you say when you can't even get the details right of things written ON THE SAME PAGE that you are posting on?

TQ: Funny, I don't remeber anyone declaring themselves a humanist.

Ever hear of a guy named Charles Darwin?  Darwin Day Humanist Association
"required reading for the humanist"

Then please explain the large number of theistic evolutionists to me.

They are people who have let humanistic influences undermine the foundation of Biblical authority.  Another example would be priests who molest children, or denominations who allow homosexuals to marry, or carry pastoral or clergy positions in the church.  Comprimise of God's word is rampant.  It all stems from man's desire to create their own god so they don't have to be accountable to the real God.

Because absolutely none of the evidence supports such a possibility

In fact I have posted gobs of evidence that supports it - again, you choose to ignore that fact.  I see you as a person running around with their fingers in their ears yelling "la la la... I can't hear you... la la la - Where's your evidence... la la la ... I can't hear you.... la la la".

TQ: As far as I'm aware.  If I'm wrong, please show me evidence to the contrary.

by Dr. Don Batton, Ph.D
"Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.

TQ: Seems pretty clear to me that you are telling demon...

I told demon he is the only one who could make that determination.  The Bible explains your confusion quite nicely though -

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  
Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.  
Jhn 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.  

So it is not me who condemns you (or Demon)... it is your own heart.  Your heart knows the truth and is trying to reveal it to your mind.  So it's easy to see why you get confused when I bring up the fact that each person gets to choose his/her own destiny - heaven or hell.  

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:21 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps your arguments just aren't that good.  I haven't seen my arguments "ripped apart".

What??  Everyone of your arguements has been destroyed.  You even posted a whole batch of arguements right from the PRATT list, arguements that have been debunked for decades and you still claim they're valid!  Sorry, you've been humiliated so far in your defense of creationism!

In fact I have posted gobs of evidence that supports it - again, you choose to ignore that fact.

Yet you post gobs of evidence that has already been debunked!  It does nothing for your arguement or your illusion of honesty!

The Bible explains your confusion quite nicely though -

But the bible is not a book of science of history.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:19 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps your arguments just aren't that good.  I haven't seen my arguments "ripped apart".  I have seen a lot of desparate posts with evolutionary dogma that doesn't adere to observational science.

:lol:
You've offered assertions with no evidence to back them up, and I've dismissed everyone of them with evidence.  Seems pretty clear cut to me

Well let me file that auspicious argument right under your quotes of PT Barnum.

Add this one too:
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."  (Abraham Lincoln, 1809-65)


Yet, again you post on this board in complete opposite of the facts.
 
The evidence presented was that tree rings extend back in an unbroken sequence to at least 13,000 years.  You then began going on about climate change, and this:
In fact, trees underwater for extended periods of time will die, but they can stay there without rotting for centuries under water.

This has what to do with the evidence I presented.  Either you didn't understand what was being said and responded anyways, or you were trying to tell me that trees would have continued growing while dead (drowned by the flood you insist happened.)  Which was it?

I asked you if trees could never produce more than one ring in a year.


And I responded: "As far as I'm aware.  If I'm wrong, please show me evidence to the contrary."

How can anyone trust what you say when you can't even get the details right of things written ON THE SAME PAGE that you are posting on?

From what I can see, I seem to be keeping everything straight.  You seem to be having a little trouble following along, as I keep having to ask you for information and evidence.

Ever hear of a guy named Charles Darwin?  

Yep, but unless there's a quote from him in that article declaring himself and anyone who studies evolution a humanist, doesn't really pertain to the question, does it?

They are people who have let humanistic influences undermine the foundation of Biblical authority.  Another example would be priests who molest children, or denominations who allow homosexuals to marry, or carry pastoral or clergy positions in the church.  Comprimise of God's word is rampant.  It all stems from man's desire to create their own god so they don't have to be accountable to the real God.

Or, it could just be your an arrogant bigot who thinks that anyone who doesn't hold the same beliefs as yourself is wrong.

In fact I have posted gobs of evidence that supports it - again, you choose to ignore that fact.


Let me reapeat:
"You've offered assertions with no evidence to back them up, and I've dismissed everyone of them with evidence.  Seems pretty clear cut to me"
by Dr. Don Batton, Ph.D

Source?

Your heart knows the truth and is trying to reveal it to your mind.  So it's easy to see why you get confused when I bring up the fact that each person gets to choose his/her own destiny - heaven or hell.

Blah blah blah, I'm right your wrong, sinner, etc. etc.

If you are god's idea of a candidate for heaven, then I'm going to enjoy hell






-------
"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: 4:23 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Source?

Never mind.  Why am I not surprised?

Don Batten from AiG:

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

Well, at least he's objective, right?

Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned

Hmm, bible doesn't mention an Ice Age as far as I know.  So creationists are allowed to change the inerrant word of God whenever they want to?

The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4).


Wow, and scientists make assumptions?  This is ridiculous on so many levels!

Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed.

As if I could take anything he says seriously by this point.  But please explain why dendrochronology, ice core samples and radiometric dating match up with each other so well







-------
"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: 4:43 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon:  Everyone of your arguments has been destroyed.

TQ: ... I've dismissed everyone of them with evidence


11.Agriculture is too recent
How so?
12.History is too short
How so?
13.The continents are eroding too quickly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof15


Clearly, you both make claims that EVERYONE of my arguments has been 'destroyed' or 'dismissed'.  Yet the direct evidence shows that some of my arguments were not even ADDRESSED let alone refuted.  This is yet ANOTHER hardcore example of you two making gradiose wide sweeping claims that contradicts the direct evidence.  

In the quoted example, not only did you not even address two of the items, but the 13th item you answered with a link.  Upon following that link I suppose I am expected to interpret the information there for myself.  Basically their conclusion is that soil errosions can't possibly be evidence for a young earth.  Even though the directly measured (obervation) rates of errosion are greater than the rates of build up (giving an overall negative number for the process as a whole), it is suggested that this is due to a temporary imbalance.  Yet when it comes to radiometric dating- no!  the levels have always been constant and there is no chance of fluctuation.  

These duplicitous arguments are to be expected from an evolutionist.  Just like saying that the flood couldn't cover the tallest mountain, then saying the tallest mountain was originally below water.

Then come the unaccountable generlizations - ALL of this are that.... EVERY SINGLE bla bla bla...  

You guys have done nothing but destroy your own credibility and show your ability to use the TalkOrigins.org search engine, then make grandiose claims of an intellectually seperior position.  

So no, I dont find your arguments to have destroyed my arguments... they haven't even been mildly compelling.  Your arguments are like a David Copperfield show in Vegas - a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.  No real magic.  Entertaining illusion though.

TQ: ... your an arrogant bigot ...

Hold on - only Left-wing Democrats are allowed to call me that!  I am assuming you are referring to my listing homosexuality in the clergy as an example of humanistic comprimise of the Bible.  The Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is wrong (if you want the verses and reasoning for that send me a private message - I don't want to make this thread a political discussion about homosexual marriage).  Genesis in particular plays a huge role in that.  It would be inconsistant of me to claim the Bible as the infallible authority on creation, and then ignore what it has to say about morality.  Either it is the word of God in it's entirety, or it is not.  We can't pick and choose the portions we want to believe.  

TQ: ... by Dr. Don Batton, Ph.D   Source?

Ah... did you not catch the fact that he is a tree physiologist?  So the source was ... Dr. Don Batton, Ph.D
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:52 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And gup proves yet again that creationists are deceitful:

Clearly, you both make claims that EVERYONE of my arguments has been 'destroyed' or 'dismissed'.  Yet the direct evidence shows that some of my arguments were not even ADDRESSED let alone refuted.

Yes, and as anyone can see, I asked for more information, which you have never provided.  Those two couldn't even properly be considered arguments.  Sentence fragments maybe, but that's about it

Upon following that link I suppose I am expected to interpret the information there for myself.

That was the general idea.  I didn't realize you weren't capable of that.  I guess I should have, seeing what you've posted thus far, and seeing how you totally misrepresented and misunderstood what the article said.

Ah... did you not catch the fact that he is a tree physiologist?  So the source was ... Dr. Don Batton, Ph.D

Thank you gup for that spot on demonstration of creationist referencing



-------
"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: 4:43 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20: Ah... did you not catch the fact that he is a tree physiologist?  So the source was ... Dr. Don Batton, Ph.D

Gup, I believe TQ was requesting that you provide a link, book page, or magazine article were you extracted that exerpt.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 5:20 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, thank you YET.  That was exactly what I was asking for.  (BTW, I found it, and you spelt he name wrong Gup)


-------
"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: 5:37 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's look at some of the arguements Gup20 has completely avoided because he has
no answer for them.

In no particular order:

1).  Gup20 insists that radiometric dating is inaccurate, yet he has shown us no valid
reason why it is inaccurate.  He claims that assumptions must be made about how
much parent material was originally present but the experts say this is not the
case.  From
here:Radiodate

"It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that
information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from
knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes. The original
abundance N0, of the parent is simply N0 = N ekt, where N is the present
abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life."

2) Fossil ‘graveyards’ around the world, where the bones of many animals were
washed together, buried, and fossilized, are evidence for a watery cataclysm
like Noah's flood.


Gup20 makes this claim but we see that there are no mixing of organisms from
different eras,
the fossil record is in chronological order, it supports the theory of
evolution, not a world wide flood.  Also, many fossils simply could not have
formed in a world wide flood, tracks and burrows would be destroyed by a flood,
yet we find them.  From
here:Fossil


"One of the keys to preservation is resistance. Either the conditions are mild
enough (calm water, little oxygen) not to destroy much of the organism, or those
parts that do get preserved are the most resistant to chemical and physical
damage. Good examples of this are the shells of clams and the teeth of mammals."

So Gup20's claim that all the worlds fossils can be attributed to a flood is wrong.

3)I supposed it's probably not a co-incidence that the life span of human beings went from 700-900 years to about 100-120 years about that same time... at least within a generation.

Gup20 makes the claim that at one point human lifespans where impossibly long and offers no evidence of this ridiculous claim.  Are there any anthropologists that claim that at one point humans lived for 700-900 years??
Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, where is Gup's?

4)As the new ocean floors cooled, they would have become denser and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents. The deepening of the ocean basins and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land.

Here we see an example of Gup20 picking and choosing what he wants to believe and what he wants to reject.  It has been explained that the ocean floor did not sink drastically 6000 years ago, yet he still uses this inaccurate posting from AIG.  We also showed him how "rebound" can be measured using satelites, and in fact, this has been done.  North America does show signs of rebound, the land rising from enormous weight, so does northern Europe and northern Asia.  Strangely enough, Africa and South America do not show ANY rebound.  A world wide flood would cause all continents to rebound equally.  As it is, the rebound measured in North America, Europe and Asia is consistent with the Ice age, and is much too low for the huge weight a world wide flood would likely produce.  

5)  Gup20 has yet to explain the massive amounts of heat that the continents breaking up and moving to their present positions would produce in a mere 6000 years.  The sheer friction of these tectonic plates moving at that speed would produce more than enough heat to completely boil away the oceans, yet we still have oceans...

And this is only the begining.  He disagrees with all the experts in biology, genetics, geology, astronomy merely on the say so of his superstitious beliefs.  I say your arguements have been destroyed because they have.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:44 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Yes, and as anyone can see, I asked for more information, which you have never provided.  Those two couldn't even properly be considered arguments.  Sentence fragments maybe, but that's about it

TQ, I was not trying to be deceitful.  I was simply pointing out the facts of the matter.  You claimed that you had destroyed all of my arguments (attempted grandstanding).  Regardless of whether or not we could each speculate our arguments were the more correct, the fact of the matter remained that you had not even answered those arguments.  I would AGAIN remind you that I posted that same list of 15 arguments more than once... (on this thread - to which you responded)  the first time as an argument, the second time (in this thread) as a demonstration when you claimed that there "was no evidence".  If you think my intention was to trick you or decieve you, then you are sorely misguided.  My intention was to show you that creationists have plenty of evidence to back up our theories, just as evolutionists have plenty of evidence.  The point being that if we all have evidence, and if the evidence is usually the same evidence, perhaps it is not the evidence that is in question, but the process through which that evidence is interpreted and applied to the framework of our respective theories - creationism, and ToE.

TQ: Yes, and as anyone can see, I asked for more information, which you have never provided.

Information which I provided in my inital argument.  Posting it in this thread was a sort of "remember this".  At that point in the discussion you were more concerned with claiming that there was no argument to concern yourself with the information I presented.  If you wish to have the "full enchilada" visit AiG.

TQ: I didn't realize you weren't capable of that.

You have to relize, TQ, that I do not believe the ToE to be a fact, as you do.  I am a creationist.  Anything I read from those pages I will interpret under than framework.  Your arguments might be more effective if you were to make them instead of leaving your arguing to someone else's interpretation of a link.  I can read the information for myself and understand their author's intention, however, in the format of discussion, I don't know what YOU think about it - or IF you thought about it, which is often my point.

Demon: Point #1 - a duplicitous statement indeed.  You start by saying that I have "shown no valid reason" why radiometric dating is inaccurate, then you proceed to refer to a reason I showed why radiometric dating was inaccurate.   Split personalities maybe?  I posted data from AiG that showed several assumptions that have to be made for any radiometric dating method to work accurately.    Link to AiG's article on Radiometric Dating

In the link you provided (the christian scientist who claims that radiometric dating is accurate) you have only to read the first paragraph of the introduction to see that his initial premise is incorrect.  He says that the earth's age is never mentioned and that the geneologies have holes in them.  He undermines his own faith.  The point of the geneologies is to show an unbroken bloodline from Adam to Jesus.  If there were holes or gaps in the bloodline, Jesus couldn't have done his redemptive work on the cross (to repair the damage Adam did at the fall).  - only a decendant of Adam could have paid the penalty for Adam's mistake.  The geneologies provide an unbroken chain from Adam to Jesus.  The geneologies are so important, in fact, that they are repeated 3 times in the Old Testament.  This verifies their authenticity and accuracy.  

I do not doubt his claims that over the last fifty years the measurement of half lifes has gotten more accurate and sophisticated, however, that doesn't mean that dates are correct.  Derriving a date from the measured radiometric data requires that assumptions be made.  

AiG has posted many arguments demonstrating the assumptions that must be made to extrapolate a date from radiometric measurements.  Some of which include:

Radiometric dating relies on three unprovable assumptions about the past:

1.  The amount of ‘daughter’ isotope in the rock at the start is known.
2.  No loss of ‘parent’ or gain of ‘daughter’ since the rock formed (closed system conditions).
3.  Constant decay rate of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’.

If these conditions could be guaranteed, the radiometric dating method would be correct. However, unless eye­witnesses observed the rock when it formed, and checked it constantly thereafter, it is impossible to guarantee that these assumptions are correct. Indeed, there are many cases in the scientific literature where assumptions one and two, though made in good faith, have been shown to be unreliable.


Demon:  Gup20 makes this claim but we see that there are no mixing of organisms from different eras, the fossil record is in chronological order, it supports the theory of
evolution, not a world wide flood.


- from the Scientific Journal TJ (TJ 17(3), 2003) Article by Michael J. Oard -

     ... But now we have a solid report that many dinosaurs survived the asteroid impact and lived another 1 million years
[according to the evolutionary timetable] - close to the impact site!  In a new volume dedicated to impacts just published by the Geological Society of America, it appears that James Fassett has incontrovertible evidence that dinosaurs existed during the Paleocene (within the evolutionary scenario). 1   Fassett has spent many years studying the Ojo Alamo Formation in the San Juan Basin of north-western New Mexico.  He has long advocated that dinosaurs lived beyond the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary and into the Paleocene.  ...  

... What is Fassett's impressive evidence?  The first is the finding of 34 skeletal elements of a single hadrosaur in the Paleocene.  Reworking, usually by streams and rivers, has always been invoked to explain away dinosaur bones in Tertiary sediments.  However, one cannot explain 34 bones, of one dinosaur, at a single location, as due to reworking, since reworking spreads the bones over a wide area.  These 34 dinosaur bones are strong evidence for in-situ burial.  

Second, Fassett and collegues performed geochmical studies on various fossils from teh Cretaceous and Paleocene layers and found distinctive chemical differences between the fossils from the two periods, especially with the amount of uranium uptake in the bones.  This indicates that the dinosaur bones in the Ojo Alamo Formation were not reworked.

Third, a number of dinosaur bones are quite large, including one hadrosuar femur that was 1.1m long with a silicified weight of 130kg.  Reworking is unlikey with such large bones, and there does not appear to be evidence of abrasion, as one would expect on reworked bones.  So the data appear solid for Paleocene dinosaurs within the evolutionary paradigm.  


1.  Fassett, J.E., Zielinski, R.A. and Budahn, J.R., Dinosarus that did not die: evidence for Paleocene dinosaurs in the Ojo Alamo sandstone, San Juan Basin, New Mexico; in: Koeberl, C. and MacLeod, K.G. (eds.), Catastrophic events and mass extinctions: Impacts and Beyond, Geological Society of America special paper 356, pp. 307-336, 2002



As to the formation of fossils as being fast or slow, we can see plenty of evidence of fish fossils showing a rapid fossilization.  Such as perfectly preserved fish fossils that appear to be giving birth, jellyfish fossils, bent plant fossils, etc.  This demonstrates that is both plausible and possible for rapid fossilization to occur.

For my 'refereces' see AiG's article Fast Fossils by Carl Wieland, Folded Ferns by Dr Joachim Scheven, Hundreds of jellyfish fossils! by David Catchpoole, and The (second) greatest catastrophe of all time by Steve Cardno.

Demon:  Gup20 makes the claim that at one point human lifespans where impossibly long and offers no evidence of this ridiculous claim.  Are there any anthropologists that claim that at one point humans lived for 700-900 years??

Actually, I did mispeak before - it wasn't within one generation of Noah... in going back and looking at the data again, it was about 4 or 5 generations later.  That we arrived at a maximum of 120-130 years.  The Bible gives clear ages in the geneologies.  

It is imporant to also realize that this could conceptually expain the "disappearace" of dinosaurs without a catostrophic event.  We know that all land animals were included on the ark (according to Kind).  Dinosaurs would have certainly been included in that.  Like if we see the life-spans of people decrease, we can assume that animals probably lived longer in the past as well.  Dinosaurs that were very large were most likely just very OLD dinosaurs.  In fact, many reptiles never stop growing throughout their life-span.  How large would they be if they lived for 1000 years?

I am not making these ages up off the top of my head:

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.  

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.  

Immediately thereafter we see the account of the flood, and then the lifespans decrease from averaging 700-900 years to 120 years within 5 generations.  


Demon: Points 4 & 5

While much of this point is speculative and fails to address many shortcomings, I will present some refutation.  

AiG has some interesting things to say about sediment ages.  For example, that the ocean floor is 'younger' relatively speaking than early sediments on Africa and South America.  Here is a snippett from the link:

These observations were compelling enough by the mid-1960s for significant numbers of Earth scientists to embrace the proposition that sea-floor spreading was genuine. However, it was data from the first deep sea drilling expedition by the Glomar Challenger in 1968 in the South Atlantic that for many removed all doubt. Nine sites from the east side of the Mid-Atlantic ridge to a point just off the continental shelf southeast of Rio de Janeiro were drilled to basaltic basement.11 Most of the sediment cores contained abundant microfossils—calcareous nannoplankton and planktonic foraminifera—of species already known from studies in continental shelf environments. These microfossils ranged in stratigraphic affinity from lower Cretaceous to late Pleistocene, with stratigraphic age of the fossils just above basaltic basement increasing progressively with distance from the ridge axis. These data now made it possible to correlate the age of the basaltic ocean basement with the sediment record on the continental shelves. They revealed the South Atlantic Ocean floor to be younger, relatively speaking, than early Mesozoic sediments on the continents and implied South America and Africa had been joined prior to that point in Earth history. Subsequent deep sea drilling of more that 2,000 holes through the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) and the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) have served to confirm to an overwhelming degree of confidence that none of today’s ocean floor basement anywhere on Earth is older than Mesozoic relative to the microfossil record12 (a well documented record that exists independent of radioisotope methods).

You can use the same AiG link to view some information on the heat generated by plate tectonics.

Basically (in the simplest terms) as they heat up from friction and stress they become easier to move thereby mitigating the ammount of heat produced by the movement.  There are several good analogies that could demonstrate this concept.  For example, say you try to bend a steel bar.  It is very difficult at first, but if you have enough strenth to start the bend, the heat generated would heat up the bar at the bend, and you can then bend the bar more easily.  Once you releive the force you are exerting (or that force reaches an equilibrium) the bar begins to cool and becomes more difficult to bend again.  What you don't see is the heat wildly going out of control and melting the bar as you bend it - why?  Because once it has reached a specific heat, dislocation creep happens in which slip occurs along preferred planes in the crystalline lattice.  In saying that "The sheer friction of these tectonic plates moving at that speed would produce more than enough heat to completely boil away the oceans.." you are assuming that dislocation creep would never happen, and that the co-efficient of friction would remain the same (linear), as well as the strength of the material, throughout the entire process.  

One has only to look at the World Trade Center destruction to see another example.  As the fires from the jet fuel heated up the steel columns, then bent and buckled as they weakened and eventually, catastrophically, gave in to dislocation creep.  As the metal bent gravity took over and exerted continuing force on the structure so that "once is started, it just kept creeping along the heated metal lattices" and the whole thing fell at once until an equilibrium was reached (aka. the force of the ground stopped it from going any further).  

Here is the technical snippett from AiG:

Can plate tectonics happen quickly? Clues from mineral physics and Venus

At least as far back as the early 1960s it has been known that for materials whose effective viscosity is described by an Arrhenius-like relationship17 the phenomenon of thermal runaway can potentially occur. The viscosity of such materials varies as e(E*/RT), where T is absolute temperature, E* is the activation energy, and R is the gas constant. A large variety of materials including silicate minerals behave in this manner. In particular, Gruntfest in 1963 showed that, with this type of temperature dependence of viscosity, both the deformation rate and the temperature of a viscous fluid layer subject to constant shear stress increase without limit, that is, run away.18 What is required is that the time constant associated with viscous heating be much smaller than the characteristic thermal diffusion time of the layer. Several investigators explored the possibility of thermal runaway of lithospheric slabs in the mantle in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Anderson and Perkins, for example, suggested that the widespread Cenozoic volcanism in the southwestern US might be a consequence of thermal runaway of chunks of lithosphere in the low viscosity upper mantle with resulting surges of melt expressed in episodes of volcanism at the surface.19 Such lithospheric slabs, because of an average temperature some 1,000 K or more lower than that of the upper mantle but with a similar chemical composition, are several percent denser than the surrounding rock and therefore have a natural ability to sink. The gravitational body forces acting on a slab lead to high stresses, especially within the mechanical boundary layer surrounding the slab. As a slab sinks, most of its gravitational potential energy is released in the form of heat in these regions of high stress. If conditions are right, the weakening arising from heating can lead to an increased sinking rate, an increased heating rate, and greater weakening. This positive feedback can result in runaway.20

Experimental studies of the deformational behaviour of silicate minerals over the last several decades have revealed the strength of such materials also depends strongly on the state of stress. At shear stresses of the order of 10-3 times the low-temperature elastic shear modulus and temperatures of the order of 80% of the melting temperature, silicate minerals deform by a mechanism known as dislocation creep in which slip occurs along preferred planes in the crystalline lattice.21 In this type of solid deformation, the deformation rate depends on the shear stress in a strongly nonlinear manner, proportional to the shear stress to approximately the third power. At somewhat higher levels of shear stress, these materials display plastic yield behaviour, where their strength decreases in an even more nonlinear way, in this case inversely with the deformation rate. When these stress-weakening mechanisms are combined with the temperature weakening discussed above, the potential for slab runaway from gravitational body forces is enhanced dramatically. A point many people fail to grasp is that these weakening mechanisms can reduce the silicate strength by ten or more orders of magnitude without the material ever reaching its melting temperature.21

The NASA Magellan mission to Venus in the early 1990s revealed that Earth’s sister planet had been globally resurfaced in the not so distant past via a catastrophic mechanism internal to the Venus mantle.22 Magellan’s high-resolution radar images showed evidence of extreme tectonic deformation that generated the northern highlands known as Ishtar Terra with mountains having slopes as high as 45°.23 More than half of the Venus surface had been flooded with basaltic lava to produce largely featureless plains except for linear fractures caused by cooling and contraction. Runaway sinking of the cold upper thermal boundary layer of the planet seems the most plausible mechanism to explain such catastrophism at the surface.22 Given such clear and tangible evidence for runaway in a planet so similar in size and composition as Venus, it is not unreasonable to consider lithospheric runaway as the mechanism behind the global scale catastrophism so apparent in the Earth’s Phanerozoic sedimentary record.


Some quick info on Dislocation Slip

Obviously there is a lot more to creationism and science than you are aware of.  Here, for example, is a basic concept of friction, yet you seem oblivious to it.  Your haughty assumption that my arguments have been destroyed are nothing more than an ostentatious, pretencious display to try to impress others (aka grandstanding).  Well, I am not impressed.  

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:52 PM on April 18, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You claimed that you had destroyed all of my arguments (attempted grandstanding).

It's not grandstanding when it's correct.

My intention was to show you that creationists have plenty of evidence to back up our theories,

Wrong, you have assertions (your wish of how it is), with no evidence to back it up.

If you wish to have the "full enchilada" visit AiG.

I go there, and find no more information there then I did here.  They have asseritions that something "must be", but no studies indicating whyit must be so, or the nececessary steps that would need to be taken, etc.  Here's a few questions for youWhy did Noah not build the ark in the local automobile factory?  Why did Moses not use GPS to lead the Israelites out of the desert more quickly?  They were as smart as us after all, so why didn't they have any of this?  Why didn't anyone invent the plane back then?

You have to relize, TQ, that I do not believe the ToE to be a fact, as you do.  I am a creationist.  Anything I read from those pages I will interpret under than framework.  Your arguments might be more effective if you were to make them instead of leaving your arguing to someone else's interpretation of a link.  I can read the information for myself and understand their author's intention, however, in the format of discussion, I don't know what YOU think about it - or IF you thought about it, which is often my point.

In other words, "please explain it to me, because I don't follow".

I posted data from AiG that showed several assumptions that have to be made for any radiometric dating method to work accurately

And with this you prove my preceeding point correct.  Demon has numerous times told you that you do not have to make any assumptions.  He has shown you the calculations used, he has shown you a number of links refuting what you say, and yet you continue to insist you are right.  Not because you have any evidence, but because AiG has an article saying that these assumptions must be made (no proof to back this up, but hey, who needs proof, right?)

Gup20 makes this claim but we see that there are no mixing of organisms from different eras, the fossil record is in chronological order, it supports the theory of
evolution, not a world wide flood.

Once again you prove you have no understanding of what is being stated.  Demon is saying that fossils are found in the order which evolutionary theory states they developed.  No mammals before reptiles, no men with dinosaurs, etc.  You're link shows that some populations of dinosaurs may have survived longer than others.  How does this prove your point in any fashion?  Not to mention that AiG got many details wrong.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/impact2000/pdf/3139.pdf

As to the formation of fossils as being fast or slow, we can see plenty of evidence of fish fossils showing a rapid fossilization.  Such as perfectly preserved fish fossils that appear to be giving birth, jellyfish fossils, bent plant fossils, etc.  This demonstrates that is both plausible and possible for rapid fossilization to occur.

No one has ever said rapid fossilization doesn't occur.  Fossil formation is very dependent on rapid burial, so what exactly are you trying to prove here?

The rest (genealogies, old aged dinosaurs, etc) are all very nice, but you have absolutely no proof.  You are making up stories to try and fit evidence that exists, while throwing out what doesn't work

I am not making these ages up off the top of my head:

No, you're getting them from a book, and there is no reason to believe that the Bible is correct in this regard.

For example, that the ocean floor is 'younger' relatively speaking than early sediments on Africa and South America.

What exactly are you trying to prove with this?  We know the ocean floor is younger.  It's called plate tectonics.  New floor is formed at mid oceaninc ridges, and it spreads out.  When it meets the continental plates, the ocean floor is subducted and "recycled" into the mantle.

Because once it has reached a specific heat, dislocation creep happens in which slip occurs along preferred planes in the crystalline lattice.

Yes, and what exactly would that heat be?  I would imagine it would be at the very least a few hundred degrees.  So, you're quite alright with the idea that the earth was heated to at least a few hundred degrees, and no damage was done to the biosphere?

The NASA Magellan mission to Venus in the early 1990s revealed that Earth’s sister planet had been globally resurfaced in the not so distant past via a catastrophic mechanism internal to the Venus mantle.22 Magellan’s high-resolution radar images showed evidence of extreme tectonic deformation that generated the northern highlands known as Ishtar Terra with mountains having slopes as high as 45°.23 More than half of the Venus surface had been flooded with basaltic lava to produce largely featureless plains except for linear fractures caused by cooling and contraction. Runaway sinking of the cold upper thermal boundary layer of the planet seems the most plausible mechanism to explain such catastrophism at the surface.22 Given such clear and tangible evidence for runaway in a planet so similar in size and composition as Venus, it is not unreasonable to consider lithospheric runaway as the mechanism behind the global scale catastrophism so apparent in the Earth’s Phanerozoic sedimentary record.

And please tell me, how does Venus's biosphere compare to earths?  What is the average surface temperature of venus?  Yep, definitley Venus is the twin to earth alright!  Size and composition are one thing, but if you want to draw comparisons and say it happened on earth too, you have to consider the effect it would have on life here, and see if there is any evidence of it.  There isn't.

Obviously there is a lot more to creationism and science than you are aware of.  Here, for example, is a basic concept of friction, yet you seem oblivious to it.  Your haughty assumption that my arguments have been destroyed are nothing more than an ostentatious, pretencious display to try to impress others (aka grandstanding).

I don't think you should be pointing fingers, as your arguments lack one essential element: facts.

Well, I am not impressed

Neither am I.  You've shown abyssmal reading comprehension, distortions, the inability to check sources for factual errors, and a gullibility that is astounding (as long as it comes from the right source).  You may want to do some basic reading before you try again.




-------
"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: 8:08 PM on April 18, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: It's not grandstanding when it's correct.

So you and I agree?  You are incorrect.  I actually showed hard evidence of why your statement was incorrect.  Therefore you admit to grandstanding?

TQ: Wrong, you have assertions (your wish of how it is), with no evidence to back it up.

Ignoring the evidence I present doesn't mean it's not there.  It just means you have ignored it.  I would point out this probably isn't a very effective method of arguing - it just makes you look unreasonable and illogical.

TQ: Here's a few questions for youWhy did Noah not build the ark in the local automobile factory?  Why did Moses not use GPS to lead the Israelites out of the desert more quickly?  They were as smart as us after all, so why didn't they have any of this?  Why didn't anyone invent the plane back then?

It has been said that necessity is the mother of all invention.  But you misquote me, I never said they were as smart as us... I would say they were probably MUCH more intelligent that we are.  

For example, we can see architechural and engineering feats that we can't begin to fathom today.  Such as the Pyramids.  The pyramids required an absolutely level base for their foundations. This was achieved by using an ingenious spirit level. The Egyptians first cut channels into the underlying rock and filled them with water. Then, they inserted rods into the channels and marked off the water line, thereby establishing a true level. And read what one author says regarding one burial chamber construction:

‘The ceiling consists of nine blocks with a total weight of 400 tonnes. To minimize the danger of the great weight of the masonry above bringing down the ceiling, five superimposed open spaces were provided above the chamber to spread the load; these constitute a masterpiece of engineering.’

Levelling? Loads? Building for stresses? Accounting for these types of things reveals a high level of knowledge beforehand. Architects and civil engineers spend years at university learning these kinds of advanced skills. The ancient world displays numerous other examples of man’s ingenuity.

Today, we have many gadgets, gizmos and machines to do the thinking for us - which is a good thing.

For more on this, visit this
AiG page.  That page extremely intriguing... you guys should all go there and read it.

This makes perfect sense, when you consider the following:  Adam was probably created with all the knowledge he would ever need.  For example, he was created knowing how to speak.  He was originally created as an eternal being, with an infinate capacity for knowledge.  It wasn't till the fall when sin and death entered the picture that a loss of this would have begun to take place.  Imagine a person who knew everything there was to know about math and nature - who had a perfect memory and reasoning.  For example, look at idiot savants.  Adam and his immediate progeny probably had these abilities but had enough non-mutated genetic material to incorporate those abilities without being "idiots"... simply savants (in fact it would be virtually assumed by the creationist that this is the case.).  According to the creation model, any genetic trait we see today would have been present in Adam, as all genes have been inherited from Adam.  Mutation has, of course erroded the information level present.

TQ: In other words, "please explain it to me, because I don't follow".

Actually, 'in other words, tell it to me in your own words because I don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about, nor do I believe you undstand the concepts you are trying to present, nor do I think you have spent any time considering the arguments you dogmatically echo'.  If that is too blunt, and offends you I apologize.  For the integrity of our discussion it should be said, however.

TQ: Not because you have any evidence, but because AiG has an article saying that these assumptions must be made (no proof to back this up, but hey, who needs proof, right?)

Demon has numerous times told you that you do not have to make any assumptions.


Yet you fail to actually look at the evidence, yet again.  You make yet ANOTHER unsubstanciated claim (that no assumptions need to be made for radiometric dating) which is in DIRECT OPPOSITION TO ACTUAL FACT!  I have shown you time and time again from teh AiG page that YOU ARE WRONG!  Yet you addemently refuse to listen.  And why?  Is it simply because it's on the AiG page?  Let me give you some secular links to investigate:

TalkOrigins.org

A college in Baltimore

Here is a snippett from the TalkOrigins page:

Potential problems for generic dating
Some assumptions have been made in the discussion of generic dating, for the sake of keeping the computation simple. Such assumptions will not always be accurate in the real world. These include:

The amount of daughter isotope at the time of formation of the sample is zero (or known independently and can be compensated for).
No parent isotope or daughter isotope has entered or left the sample since its time of formation.

If one of these assumptions has been violated, the simple computation above yields an incorrect age.

General comments on "dating assumptions"
All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time.

Avoidance of generic dating's problems:
-Initial daughter product
-Contamination - parent isotope
-Contamination - daughter isotope
-Exceptions for loss of daughter

So, are isochron methods foolproof?
In the real world, nothing is perfect. There are some isochron results which are obviously incorrect. The significance of isochron plots is a bit counter-intuitive in some cases. And there are known processes which can yield an incorrect isochron age. Does this leave room to discard isochron dating as entirely unreliable? Not really...

The large majority of isochron dating results are in accordance with the mainstream age and history of the Earth. If the results were essentially random numbers, that would not be the expected distribution of results. See the tables of meteorite isochron ages in The Age of the Earth FAQ for example.


"Counter-intuitive" ages -- for example results which indicate an event earlier than the time of crystallization of the sampled object -- are usually produced by inappropriate selection of samples, and can be avoided in most cases. For one example, see my Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.


The processes which could produce incorrect isochron ages require special circumstances, and are not universally applicable across the wide range of rock and mineral types on which isochron dating (by several different radioactive isotopes) has been successfully performed.



"The large majority of isochron dating results are in accordance with the mainstream age and history of the Earth."


In other words, we can fit it into our paradigm of the earth's origins, so we accept it as truth.

That is directly from TalkOrigins website.  It DIRECTLY states that assumptions are indeed made - and there is absolutely denying it!  However, this is exactly what you are attempting to do - claim radiometric dating as infallible truth... claim radiometric dating does not rely on assumptions, but it clearly does.  Even TalkOrigins eventually has to admit that fact.  

Demon has numerous times told you that you do not have to make any assumptions.


{{sigh}}

When will you guys wake up from this little dream world you are living in?  Evolution isn't the open and shut case you think it is.  There is far more to this world than you are aware of.  But your minds have been censored for so long, that actual truth has a hard time getting in - if it's not dogmattic faith in evolution it's like it doesn't exist.  Well, as I have shown you guys, yet again, it does exist.  

No mammals before reptiles, no men with dinosaurs, etc.  You're link shows that some populations of dinosaurs may have survived longer than others.  How does this prove your point in any fashion?

The problem arises if you start to 'fix' the issue of Paleocene dinosaur fossils.  If you try to change the definitions of the fossil layers (to accomodate the dinosaur bones in this strata), you start to run into all kinds of problems because many times strata is classified based on what fossils were found in it.  

Here is some more information about that from AiG:

Do the rock strata represent eons of time?
There is a wealth of evidence that the rock strata do not represent vast periods of time. For example, the huge Coconino sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon is about 100 m thick and extends to some 250,000 km2 in area. The large-scale cross-bedding shows that it was all laid down in deep, fast-flowing water in a matter of days. Other rock layers in the Grand Canyon indicate that they were rapidly deposited also, and without substantial time-breaks between the laying down of each unit.1 Indeed, the whole Grand Canyon sequence is bent at the Kaibab Upwarp, in some spots quite radically, and without cracking. This indicates that the strata, which supposedly represent some 300 million years of evolutionary time, were all still soft when the bending occurred.1,2 This is consistent with the layers being deposited and bent quickly, during the Genesis Flood.

Some other evidences for the non-existence of the eons of time and for the rapid deposition of the layers are:

polystrate fossils—tree trunks, for example, running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the trunks would have rotted away.

delicate surface features preserved on underlying rock units—such as ripple marks and footprints—indicate that there was no long time gap before the next unit was deposited.

lack of fossilized soil layers in the rock strata, indicating no long time gaps.

lack of erosion features in the rock layers or between the rock units (any significant time break would result in channels being formed in the exposed strata from the action of water or wind).

limited extent of unconformities.  Although unconformities (clear breaks in deposition) indicate time breaks, such unconformities are localized, with no break evident in rocks of the same strata elsewhere, thus indicating that any time break was localized and brief.

clastic dykes and pipes—where a sand/water mixture has squeezed up through overlying layers.  Although the underlying sand is supposed to be millions of years older than the overlying layers, it obviously did not have time to harden.

and much else.2,3

Evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed
Much evidence suggests that people and dinosaurs lived together, not separated by 65 million years or more, as evolutionists believe:

Many historical accounts of living animals, which were known as ‘dragons,’ are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs—such as Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and Ankylosaurus. The video The Great Dinosaur Mystery documents some of these.5 The account in Job 40 of behemoth sounds like one of the big dinosaurs, such as Apatosaurus or Brachiosaurus.

Unmineralized (‘unfossilized’) dinosaur bones.6 How could these bones, some of which even have blood cells in them, be 65 million years or more old? It stretches the imagination to believe they are even many thousands of years old.

Rocks bearing dinosaur fossils often contain very little plant material—e.g., in the Morrison formation in North America. This is another indication that the strata do not represent eras of life on earth. If the strata represent an age of dinosaurs, what did they eat? A large Apatosaurus would need over three tonnes of vegetation per day, yet there is no indication of significant vegetation in many of these dinosaur-bearing strata. In other words, we see buried dinosaurs, not buried ecosystems or an ‘Age of Dinosaurs.’

Out-of-sequence fossils
Many fossils and artifacts have been found ‘out of place.’7  That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artifacts could not have been made.  There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in.  Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary worldview.  In another context, Nobel Prize winner Sir Fred Hoyle said,

‘Science today is locked into paradigms.  Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn it down.’8

Forbidden Archeology, by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artifacts.9  They wrote the book from a westernized Hindu perspective to show that humans were present from antiquity, as required for the eons of multi-cycles of reincarnation of Hindu belief.  (True Hindus are not concerned about such rationalizing, believing the physical world to be illusory.10)  Cremo and Thompson are not worried about the millions of years, just whether humans were there.  They are ‘fellow-travelers’ with creationists only in the sense that we also believe that people were here almost all along, except we do not accept the billions of years.  Cremo and Thompson have done a thorough job, with the final work being 914 pages long.  

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood (e.g. buried in caves during the post-Flood Ice Age—see What about the Ice Age?).  However, in at least one case, human bones have been found in ‘older’ strata.11 Unfortunately, the lack of detailed documentation associated with their removal makes it impossible to say with certainty that they were not the result of subsequent intrusive burial, although nothing we know of suggests they were.  

In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘re-working’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together.  However, the ‘re-worked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.

References
Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA, 1994. Return to text.
Morris, J., The Young Earth, Creation-Life Publishers Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, 1994. Return to text.
Raging Waters, video produced by Keziah Videos, 1998. Return to text.
Snelling, A., Uluru and Kata Tjuta testimony to the Flood, Creation 20(2):36–40, 1998. Return to text.
Eden Films/Films for Christ. See also Chapter 19: What happened to the dinosaurs? Return to text.
Wieland, C., Dinosaur bones: just how old are they really?, Creation 21(1):54–55, 1999, and references therein. Return to text.
For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E. L., Matzko, G. T. and Lammerts, W. E., Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182, 1988. Return to text.
Horgan, J., Profile: Fred Hoyle, Scientific American 272(3):24–25, 1995. Return to text.
Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., Forbidden Archeology, Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814, 1993. Return to text.
One reason why science flourished only in Bible-believing nations. Return to text.
Two human skeletons in a copper mine in Moab, Utah, in the (Cretaceous) Dakota Sandstone, which is supposed to be ‘dinosaur age.’ C. L. Burdick, Discovery of human skeletons in Cretaceous formation (Moab, Utah), Creation Research Society Quarterly 10(2):109–10, 1973. Return to text.


I would encourage you to visit that page aswell.  Again, you will probably come away feeling cheated and lied to by evolutionists.  



 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 10:34 PM on April 18, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Radiometric dating relies on three unprovable assumptions about the past:

1.  The amount of ‘daughter’ isotope in the rock at the start is known.
2.  No loss of ‘parent’ or gain of ‘daughter’ since the rock formed (closed system conditions).
3.  Constant decay rate of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’.


And I have showed you that these assumptions are wrong!  The experts agree!
From Dr.Wiens

"Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers."

Dr. Wiens is an expert in the field of radiometric dating, he knows much more about it than AIG.  Did you miss the first part of the article that gave his credentials?  Here:

"Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory."

While having one expert with these credentials and experience to support my point is impressive, the fact still remains that Dr. Wiens represents the consensus of modern geology!  This is what virtually every geologists accepts as fact.  You and AIG can continue to deny reality, but that doesn't change the facts and you have given no evidence (again!) why we should doubt radiometric dating!

As to the fossil record supporting the theory or evolution and not creatinism, well, I don't know what your point was but it certainly didn't support creationism!  You still haven't shown us any out of place fossils.  You still didn't show us how the pattern of fossil placement is explained by the flood.  So the Law of Fossil Succession still stands and it fully supports the theory of evolution.  From here:
USGSfossils

"If we begin at the present and examine older and older layers of rock, we will come to a level where no fossils of humans are present. If we continue backwards in time, we will successively come to levels where no fossils of flowering plants are present, no birds, no mammals, no reptiles, no four-footed vertebrates, no land plants, no fishes, no shells, and no animals. The three concepts are summarized in the general principle called the Law of Fossil Succession: The kinds of animals and plants found as fossils change through time. "

ONce again, all the experts agree, the fossil record supports evolution and disproves creationism.

It is imporant to also realize that this could conceptually expain the "disappearace" of dinosaurs without a catostrophic event.  We know that all land animals were included on the ark (according to Kind).  Dinosaurs would have certainly been included in that.  Like if we see the life-spans of people decrease, we can assume that animals probably lived longer in the past as well.  Dinosaurs that were very large were most likely just very OLD dinosaurs.  In fact, many reptiles never stop growing throughout their life-span.  How large would they be if they lived for 1000 years?

I am not making these ages up off the top of my head:


ONce again you spout nonsense!  Your only evidence is the bible and we've all ready established the Bible is not scientifically or historically accurate!  We see no evidence of long life spans, the concept flies in the face of modern science!  And you can give us no real empirical evidence for your claims, just these made up stories.  No, dinosaurs never lived at the same time as humans, no humans ever lived 700-900 years, the idea that reptiles never stop growing is a fallacy if you're saying there is no limit on how large they can get...
Once again, you have failed to prove your point,  evolution is the only thing supported by the facts.

You can use the same AiG link to view some information on the heat generated by plate tectonics.

We see no real scientists using AIG for a source because AIG is basically wrong about everything.  But you make the point:

Basically (in the simplest terms) as they heat up from friction and stress they become easier to move thereby mitigating the ammount of heat produced by the movement.  There are several good analogies that could demonstrate this concept.

As I stated before, your analogies suck!  But you fail to explain what happened to the initial heat created by the friction of millions of tons of rock scraping against more rock.  There is no evidence of this happening in an incredibly quick time span and this much heat would still have boiled away the oceans!  So you're wrong again!

Obviously there is a lot more to creationism and science than you are aware of.  Here, for example, is a basic concept of friction, yet you seem oblivious to it.  Your haughty assumption that my arguments have been destroyed are nothing more than an ostentatious, pretencious display to try to impress others (aka grandstanding).  Well, I am not impressed.

The fact that you are not impressed doesn't mean anything.  You continually deny modern scientific theories in favor of an inaccurate book of superstitions written over 4000 years ago, so your opinion doesn't interest me in the least.  Your little story of friction from AIG is obviously wrong, as are all your other points.  
You try to assert your scientific knowledge, but from your misunderstanding of evolution, geology, genetics and astronomy, all you've demonstrated is how willfully ignorant someone can be when trapped in illogical, unbelievable, superstitious thinking.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:19 PM on April 18, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you and I agree?  You are incorrect.  I actually showed hard evidence of why your statement was incorrect.  Therefore you admit to grandstanding?

Makes absolutely no sense, but if it makes you feel better...

Ignoring the evidence I present doesn't mean it's not there.  It just means you have ignored it.  I would point out this probably isn't a very effective method of arguing - it just makes you look unreasonable and illogical.

As I've said, what you have presented isn't evidence, it is stories of what you think happened.  There is no evidence to back it up, and quite a bit to the contrary.  And for a good example of this, lets look at your response to my intelligence/invention question:

It has been said that necessity is the mother of all invention....Mutation has, of course erroded the information level present.
You just made a nice little story with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, and this is evidence?

Let me give you some secular links to investigate:

From the talk origins page you provided:
Note that the mere existence of these assumptions do not render the simpler dating methods entirely useless. In many cases, there are independent cues (such as geologic setting or the chemistry of the specimen) which can suggest that such assumptions are entirely reasonable. However, the methods must be used with care -- and one should be cautious about investing much confidence in the resulting age... especially in absence of cross-checks by different methods, or if presented without sufficient information to judge the context in which it was obtained.

Isochron methods avoid the problems which can potentially result from both of the above assumptions.

So, results are cross checked, and there indications which are factored in to correct the "assumptions".  Also, this is the "simple" method.  Farther down the page (obviously you never read it):
All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time. The wonderful property of isochron methods is: if one of these requirements is violated, it is nearly certain that the data will indicate the problem by failure to plot on a line. (This topic will be discussed in much more detail below.) Where the simple methods will produce an incorrect age, isochron methods will generally indicate the unsuitability of the object for dating.

"The large majority of isochron dating results are in accordance with the mainstream age and history of the Earth."

In other words, we can fit it into our paradigm of the earth's origins, so we accept it as truth.

Why don't you adress the other two points made?  You know, the ones that totally blow your little diatribe out of the water?

When will you guys wake up from this little dream world you are living in?  Evolution isn't the open and shut case you think it is.  There is far more to this world than you are aware of.  But your minds have been censored for so long, that actual truth has a hard time getting in - if it's not dogmattic faith in evolution it's like it doesn't exist.  Well, as I have shown you guys, yet again, it does exist.  

Right, we're the ones who ignore reality.  You need some serious therapy.  The "assumptions" that are made are no larger than the assumptions made in any other science.  And it is easy to see if those assumptions are correct or not by the results given.

Do the rock strata represent eons of time?
There is a wealth of evidence that the rock strata do not represent vast periods of time. For example, the huge Coconino sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon is about 100 m thick and extends to some 250,000 km2 in area. The large-scale cross-bedding shows that it was all laid down in deep, fast-flowing water in a matter of days. Other rock layers in the Grand Canyon indicate that they were rapidly deposited also, and without substantial time-breaks between the laying down of each unit.1 Indeed, the whole Grand Canyon sequence is bent at the Kaibab Upwarp, in some spots quite radically, and without cracking. This indicates that the strata, which supposedly represent some 300 million years of evolutionary time, were all still soft when the bending occurred.1,2 This is consistent with the layers being deposited and bent quickly, during the Genesis Flood.

Study basic geology

polystrate fossils—tree trunks, for example, running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the trunks would have rotted away.

Explained 200 years ago, and I and Demon both explained it to you

delicate surface features preserved on underlying rock units—such as ripple marks and footprints—indicate that there was no long time gap before the next unit was deposited.

Wrong, and please tell me how this is explained by the flood?

lack of fossilized soil layers in the rock strata, indicating no long time gaps.

lack of erosion features in the rock layers or between the rock units (any significant time break would result in channels being formed in the exposed strata from the action of water or wind).

limited extent of unconformities.  Although unconformities (clear breaks in deposition) indicate time breaks, such unconformities are localized, with no break evident in rocks of the same strata elsewhere, thus indicating that any time break was localized and brief.

clastic dykes and pipes—where a sand/water mixture has squeezed up through overlying layers.  Although the underlying sand is supposed to be millions of years older than the overlying layers, it obviously did not have time to harden.

Wrong, basic geology (first year in fact).

Many historical accounts of living animals, which were known as ‘dragons,’ are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs—such as Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and Ankylosaurus. The video The Great Dinosaur Mystery documents some of these.5 The account in Job 40 of behemoth sounds like one of the big dinosaurs, such as Apatosaurus or Brachiosaurus.

Evidence?  Like maybe a stuffed dinosaur?  Dinosaur bones from the middle ages?  No?   How about this?  People have been digging up fossils for thousands of years, and have made up stories to explain them.

Unmineralized (‘unfossilized’) dinosaur bones.6 How could these bones, some of which even have blood cells in them, be 65 million years or more old? It stretches the imagination to believe they are even many thousands of years old.

Flat out untrue.  I already told you this, showed you an article with excerpts from the discoverers of the bone in question refuting this, and yet you post it again!

Rocks bearing dinosaur fossils often contain very little plant material—e.g., in the Morrison formation in North America. This is another indication that the strata do not represent eras of life on earth. If the strata represent an age of dinosaurs, what did they eat? A large Apatosaurus would need over three tonnes of vegetation per day, yet there is no indication of significant vegetation in many of these dinosaur-bearing strata. In other words, we see buried dinosaurs, not buried ecosystems or an ‘Age of Dinosaurs.’

And how many dinosaur skins and muscles are fossilized?  Not many.  Why?  Because they are soft, and have no hard parts.  Same as plants.  Use your brain!

Out-of-sequence fossils

Three paragraphs and not one example

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood (e.g. buried in caves during the post-Flood Ice Age—see What about the Ice Age?).  However, in at least one case, human bones have been found in ‘older’ strata.11 Unfortunately, the lack of detailed documentation associated with their removal makes it impossible to say with certainty that they were not the result of subsequent intrusive burial, although nothing we know of suggests they were.

Another story with no detail.  Very good science evident here

I would encourage you to visit that page aswell.  Again, you will probably come away feeling cheated and lied to by evolutionists.

Gup, you have presented nothing but assertions, lies, and stories that I personally corrected you on numerous times.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  Lie for your faith all you want, but do not expect anyone with any intelligence to believe a word you say.  This is sickening and embarassing for christians everywhere.
















-------
"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: 02:01 AM on April 19, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20's constant barrage of nonsense is just mind boggling!  Let me just break this one point down and show how wrong it is.

There is a wealth of evidence that the rock strata do not represent vast periods of time. For example, the huge Coconino sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon is about 100 m thick and extends to some 250,000 km2 in area. The large-scale cross-bedding shows that it was all laid down in deep, fast-flowing water in a matter of days.

No there is not a wealth of evidence indicating rock strata is young, you've been lied to and are so desperate to cling to your superstitious faith, you deny reality.  Your claim that the Coconino sandstone formation was laid down in a matter of days is a lie.  Maybe you're a dupe for believing it, but it is a lie none the less.  From here:GrandCanyon

"Coconino Sandstone - This layer averages about 260 million years old and is composed of pure quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified. The color of this layer ranges from white to cream colored. No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist. "

So we see, once again, that the experts all agree that the Coconino formation is millions of years old and could not have been formed in a few thousand years.  It was not laid down by fast moving water, just the opposite.  It is composed of petrified sand dunes.  The fossilized tracks and burrows could not be there if it was laid down by a massive flood.
Petrified sand dunes are not produced by a flood.  And here's a great response from TalkOrigins...

"Eolian (wind-blown) and subaqueous dunes have superficial similarities, but they differ in particulars. There is a great deal of diverse evidence that the Coconino sandstone originated as eolian desert dunes. As McKee [1979, 204] states:
The basis for considering the Coconino Sandstone to be of eolian origin involves numerous criteria, some of which are distinctive of an eolian environment and others merely compatible with but not diagnostic of it. No single type of evidence seems entirely conclusive, but, together, the various features present very strong evidence. The principal criteria of dune deposition are as follows:


The extent and homogeneity of the sand body.


The tabular-planar and wedge-planar type and large scale of cross-stratification. The common high-angle deposits are interpreted as slipfaces on the lee sides of dunes, and the relatively rare low-angle cross-strata that dip toward the opposite quadrant apparently represent deposits of windward slopes.


Slump marks of several varieties preserved on the steeply dipping surfaces of lee-side deposits. These are distinctive of dry sand avalanching.


Ripple marks which are common on surfaces of high-angle crossbedding suggest eolian deposition both by their high indexes (above 15) and by their orientation with axes parallel to dip slope.


The local preservation of a distinctive type of rain pit. Such pits illustrate the cohesion of sand grains with added moisture and a reorientation of the crater axes with respect to bedding slopes.


Successions of miniature rises or steps ascending dip slopes of crossbeds.


The preservation in fine sand of reptile footprints and probable millipede trails with sharp definition and clear impression.


The consistent orientation of reptilian tracks up (not down) the steep foreset slopes.
Since McKee published, additional types of terrestrial trace fossils, paleosols, and other distinctive eolian sedimentary structures have been recognized in Coconino and related eolian strata.

If a person looks carefully at modern dunes, e.g. the Great Sand Dunes, White Sands, Nebraska Sand Hills, and so forth, a person finds an abundance of climbing translatent beds, with coarsening-up laminae and rare foreset laminae that form only by the migration and accretion of low amplitude wind ripples in eolian environments. Such beds form only in terrestrial eolian environments and are completely absent from marine or lacustrine environments because the wind ripples that create them simply don't form under water and underwater analogues of these sedimentary. The fact that wind ripple and the distinctive bedding and laminations occur throughout the Coconino Sandstone and other similar strata, e.g. the Navajo and Entrada clearly refutes the marine hypothesis for their origin.


Sand-waves deposited in water possess very low angle cross-beds, rarely steeper than 10 degrees. Cross-bedding in eolian dunes occurs at various angles. The general range in slope of the cross-beds is from 11 to 34 degrees. The average appears to be close to 25-28 degrees. The average slope of cross-bedding doesn't have to be equal to 30 to 34 degrees, which is the maximum slope of dry sand, to be from a sand dune. The maximum slope of cross-bedding within the Coconino Sandstone does get as steep as 30 to 34 degrees [McKee 1979; Reineck and Singh 1980; Walker and James 1992]. The 30-34 degree slope is produced from sand avalanching down the lee slip face of the dune. The beds and laminae produced by wind ripple migration can form cross-bedding and lamination that has slopes up to 20 degrees within a sand dune. Given that this cross-bedding is everywhere present in the Coconino Sandstone, it greatly decreases the average slope of the cross-bedding within Coconino Sandstone. In addition, grain fall processes produce low, inclined lamination and beds with slopes that average between 20 to 30 degrees and range from 0 to 40 degrees. The presence of grain fall bedding and lamination within the Coconino, not only refutes the hypotheses concerning the underwater / marine origin of the Coconino Sandstone, but also again greatly decreases the average slope of the cross-bedding found in the Coconino Sandstone. Thus, it is completely reasonable that the average slope of the cross-bedding in the Coconino Sandstone is less than the average slope of dry sand, e.g. 30 to 34 degrees, because the cascading of sand down the lee side of the sand dune is not the only process producing cross-beds and laminations in dune sands [Hunter 1977]. '

They neatly destroy your claim.  And from here, we see that the quartz sand grains are a product of wind abrasion, not water transport, so, again, the real evidence rules out a flood rapidly depositing the Coconino formation.  From here:
GrandCanyonII

" Coconino grains are quartz, a mineral both abundant and durable. When rocks weather and erode, many minerals may be present in the resulting sediment. Some of these minerals dissolve; others erode to dust. Usually, after blowing in the wind for a very long time, only the sturdy quartz grains remain. These dune quartz grains are very mature: uniform composition, small sand size, very well rounded, and all grains about the same size.  Those features demonstrate the grains’ origin in blowing dunes. Sand transported by water never reaches this degree of maturity because water transports sand more slowly than wind, causing less abrasion. "

The only honest thing for Gup20 to do is admit he was wrong about the Coconino formation, but somehow, I doubt it...


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:12 AM on April 19, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And I have showed you that these assumptions are wrong!  The experts agree!

You have stated time and time again "No assumptions must be made for radiometric dating".  I show you page after page...  college and universities... links from AiG, links from talkorigins.org... all say the same thing... that you are wrong - that assumptions are indeed made to get dates from radiometric data.

Not much more I can do but show you the truth... you can choose not to believe it if you want.  

Demon: we've all ready established the Bible is not scientifically or historically accurate!

HA!!  In your dreams!  You established that in your own mind long before any discussion ever took place.  You established that as a child when you 'forsook your faith' and choose another path.

Demon:  the idea that reptiles never stop growing is a fallacy ...

You are either a very desparate person, or very foolish.  You deny the fact that most reptiles never stop growing despite the mounds of empirical evidence.  Is it any wonder, then, that you would hold evolution so dear?

Your posts are beginning to make less and less sense and sound more and more desparate - to the point where you are denying well known facts that even evolutionists hold to be true simply because it came from a creationist (be it me or AiG).  You are quickly loosing all credibility.

Demon: We see no real scientists using AIG for a source because AIG is basically wrong about everything.

So says the guy who thinks that no assumptions are made in radiometric dating, and who thinks that no reptiles grow their entire lives.  

Yet again, you are wrong.
Also, all the people who operate and publish articles on that site have degrees.  Do YOU have a degree in anything?

But you fail to explain what happened to the initial heat created by the friction of millions of tons of rock scraping against more rock.

Your assumption relys on the fact that the heat would build up in a linear fashion and continuously add heat to 'boil the oceans'.  This is wrong on several levels.  It also implies that the oceans didn't heat up at all.  There are in fact several theories that it may have done just that - Link to Nature article

Also, why don't the oceans boil away already?  There are many deep sea volcanos and places where the earth ruptures underwater and molten rock pour out... why doesn' this boil away the oceans?  In fact, there are places under the ocean where the water temperature reaches 350 degrees Celcius.  Hey!  Isn't 100 degrees celcius the boiling point?  Yes it is... but the rules change when you add another factor - pressure!  In fact you can even find living creatures and plants in those temperatures under the sea.  350 degree C  water at the bottom of the ocean

TQ - I will respond to your post as soon as I get time (and to your other message, Demon).  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:04 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have stated time and time again "No assumptions must be made for radiometric dating".  I show you page after page...  college and universities... links from AiG, links from talkorigins.org... all say the same thing... that you are wrong - that assumptions are indeed made to get dates from radiometric data.

What the hell are you talking about???  I showed you that the experts sasy you're wrong!  The assumptions you claimed have to be made are not true!  The assumptions that are made are easily checked for.  Isochron dating has it's own error checking routines.
And you never could explain the fact that different techniques still concurr, this could not happen if the all radiometric dating techniques were flawed, 2 different isotopes could not give the same wrong age!  Again you ignore the over all picture, the fact that virtually all radiometric dating techniques agree and all the experts support radiometric dating!  You have disproven nothing, you try desperately to twist the information and fail miserably!  I have posted numerous sites that support and use radiometric dating, and the fact remains, it is highly accurate, and the dates from many different isotopes all concurr!  From here:
radiodating

"The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other. "

Samples are crossed checked by multiple methods.  You present AIG as your evidence and no one believes them.  Why?  Becasue they dogmatically cling to their superstitions and ignore the real evidence.  You do the same thing, faithfully parrotting the company line, never thinking for yourself.  

HA!!  In your dreams!  You established that in your own mind long before any discussion ever took place.  You established that as a child when you 'forsook your faith' and choose another path.

Sorry, you still have that wrong, I never 'forsook' my faith, my faith never included creationism!  And of course a number of posters destroyed your stupid notion that the Bible is a valid book of history and science.  The Bible still says the earth is flat and unmoving, you failed in trying to disprove that, it didn't have a valid cure for leprosy, it never accurately described Egyptian or Roman history, the stories in the Bible have been shown to be wrong, no Exodus, no world wide flood, no Roman sensus, ect...

Dinosaurs that were very large were most likely just very OLD dinosaurs.  In fact, many reptiles never stop growing throughout their life-span.  How large would they be if they lived for 1000 years?

That's your statement!  You're claiming that the only reason the dinosaurs were so big was because they were so old????!!!  Do you really know so little about biologoy?!  A lizard today, if it lived as long as the dinosaurs would grow giant??  No!  Different body plans have limits to how large they can grow, the sauropod dinosaurs (ultrasaurus, brachiosaurus, appatosaurus, ect...) were huge because they evolved to support that much weight, we never see 50 foot tall velociraptors because, no matter how old they got, their bodies could not have supported that size!  Please, this comment is ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of basic biological concepts!

Also, all the people who operate and publish articles on that site have degrees.  Do YOU have a degree in anything?

What does it matter if I have a degree, the sources I use all do!  And they represent the consensus of science!  The sources you use all sign pledges that they MUST support their dogmatic beliefs, to ignore evidence that is contrary to their religious myths.  Yeah, that's real science!  Here's part of AIG's mission statement:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

There you have it!  AIG says nothing can overturn their interpretation of scriptures!  You accuse me of seeing the facts thru the lense of evolution and I say science and evolution merely look at the facts and build the best explaination (and the rest of the scientific world agrees with me, evolution is the only scientific explaination for the diversity of life on earth, still!), yet you can't acknowledge the overwhelming bias of your sources, a bias that forces them to deny reality!  Read their mission statement again!  How can you possibly call any organization that makes such a judgemental pledge to interpret evidence only through the 4000 year old myths a reliable source for science!???  You have yet to show how science is biased, how evolution is a religion, or how evolution is wrong, yet the FACT that AIG is incredibly bias, that by their very nature they HAVE to be bias totaaly escapes you...once again, talk about willfully ignorant!

Also, why don't the oceans boil away already?  There are many deep sea volcanos and places where the earth ruptures underwater and molten rock pour out... why doesn' this boil away the oceans?  In fact, there are places under the ocean where the water temperature reaches 350 degrees Celcius.  Hey!  Isn't 100 degrees celcius the boiling point?  Yes it is... but the rules change when you add another factor - pressure!  In fact you can even find living creatures and plants in those temperatures under the
sea.


You refuse to get it!  Willfully ignorant!  The reason the oceans don't boil away now is because the heat produced by plate movement, byunder sea volcanoes and fissures is but a fraction of the amount of heat
that would be produced if the continents moved into there present positions in a few thousands of years!  Don't you even try to think for yourself!  Continental drift is a well uinderstood phenomenon, we know from multiple lines of evidence how fast tectonic plates move and how fast they moved in the past.  Pangea broke up about 200 million years ago, once again, virtually all geologists accept this, it is as close to a fact as science can be.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:28 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
tifagomez

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

who disproved creationism 200 years ago?
If it was disproven then why doesn't every-
one know it?
Why is there a debate?
To say that creationism has been disproved
tells all of us what mind set you own.
You would have to be omni-present,knowing
full and perfect knowledge,and know exactly,
how life began to say that creationism is false.
You cannot make such a claim and pass it off
as truth!!!
Only God could make such a claim.
If you don't have perfect knowledge of everything,you cannot pretend that you do.


-------
tifagomez*
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 11:02 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

who disproved creationism 200 years    ago?

From here:anticreationism

"In the 1700's belief in a 6000 year old Earth crumbled. Attempts to calculate the age of the Earth from physical considerations yielded estimates that ranged from 75,000 years (Buffon, 1774) to several billion years (de Maillet, Buffon).

The physical models were open to question and, in retrospect, were naive. The geological evidence was more serious. It became quite clear that many areas of the Earth had alternated between being land and being covered by seas, that there had been extensive slow sedimentation, that the mountains had not been created in situ as is but rather had a long history of slow deformation, and that long periods of erosion had shaped the Earth everywhere."

So we see by the 1700's, no real scientists believed in an earth only 10000 to 6000 years old.  And no evidence found since that time has supported a young earth, a world wide flood or discrete creation of life.

If it was disproven then why doesn't every-
one know it?


Well, the experts know about it, the people who really study geology, biology, astronomy all accept an old earth based on the evidence and reject a young earth based on the evidence.  Anyone who can read and reason can study geology and evolution and see why it is valid.

Why is there a debate?

There is no debate in science.  The people who really study biology, geology, chemistry, genetics, astronomy all accept the theory of evolution, a 4.5 billion year old earth, no world wide flood.  The last poll I saw had 99.9% of the life science (biology, geology, genetics, ect...) all accepting evoltuion and old earth.  Creationism is rightly consigned to the crackpot junk heap with the flat earth and geocentrism.  The only people who believe in creationism are a vocal minority that ignore the evidence, twist the scientific method to support their superstitious myths and generally ignore reality.  But as I've said, there is no real debate between the experts.

To say that creationism has been disproved
tells all of us what mind set you own.


Nope, just shows I can follow modern scientific thought and can read the history of science.
And as with all science, I just go where the facts lead, and all the facts lead to the theory of evolution and and old earth.

You would have to be omni-present,knowing
full and perfect knowledge,and know exactly,
how life began to say that creationism is    false


Nope, just have to do what's all ready been done, show that the earth cannot possibly be only 6000-10000 years old, show that there could not possibly have been a world wide flood and show that the theory of evolution is the only explaination for the diversity of life on earth.  So yes, creationism has all ready been proven wrong.

You cannot make such a claim and pass it off
as truth!!!
Only God could make such a claim.


Got any evidence to back this up or are you just talking out of your ass, like most creationists?

If you don't have perfect knowledge of everything,you cannot pretend that you do.

I don't pretend that I do, nor do I need perfect knowledge to follow the evidence and see creationism never happened and could not possibly have happened.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:10 AM on April 20, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
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.