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
     Evilution

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

    
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

have you guys heard about the new theory that was presented in national geographic magazine? it provided evidence that all humans today have all descended from a single man who lived 60,000 years ago. i think that is kind of interesting


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:49 AM on January 4, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fallingup, thanks for bringing that up!  Yes, I heard about that article.  Their wrong about the 16,000 years, but one thing they have right is that every person alive today came from one man and one woman!  That's from DNA research I believe.  Now where have I heard that before?

Guest, you're right, disproving evolution doesn't necessarily prove Biblical Creationism.  Read my posts though, (specifically the one before the last one) and you'll find that it does prove the existence of the supernatural.
From there, you can take many of the known explanations of the origin of life, and evaluate them according to the evidence.  I find the Bible to be more reliable than any other book I know of, so I believe what it says about the origin of life.

Right!  The truth is what really matters after all!  You might be interested in a book called "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell.  He examined Christianity and a whole host of other religions from an atheist viewpoint.  This book is a compilation of the evidence he found, which is what led him to the conclusions he made.  Check it out!

A note about science: in reconstructing the past, all science has to deal with is pieces of evidence that exist in the present.  We have to take those pieces and see which "theory" best explains the evidence, not the other way around!  This forum is a great place to do that!  As you know, I consider myself a Creationist.  Go ahead and bring up the evidence, and we'll compare notes and try to figure out which explanation best accounts for all of the evidence!


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 06:50 AM on January 4, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

why are they wrong about the 60,000 years? the problem is, most creationists believe that the world was created in 4,000 BC. but the fact is, the Bible does not preach that at all. God created the world and mankind around 60,000 BC. it is clearly impossible for the world to have been created in 4,000 BC. give me one piece of evidence that it is


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:06 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
Faze

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from David_B_Thompson at 06:50 AM on January 4, 2003 :
Fallingup, thanks for bringing that up!  Yes, I heard about that article.  Their wrong about the 16,000 years, but one thing they have right is that every person alive today came from one man and one woman!  That's from DNA research I believe.  Now where have I heard that before?

Guest, you're right, disproving evolution doesn't necessarily prove Biblical Creationism.  Read my posts though, (specifically the one before the last one) and you'll find that it does prove the existence of the supernatural.
From there, you can take many of the known explanations of the origin of life, and evaluate them according to the evidence.  I find the Bible to be more reliable than any other book I know of, so I believe what it says about the origin of life.

Right!  The truth is what really matters after all!  You might be interested in a book called "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell.  He examined Christianity and a whole host of other religions from an atheist viewpoint.  This book is a compilation of the evidence he found, which is what led him to the conclusions he made.  Check it out!

A note about science: in reconstructing the past, all science has to deal with is pieces of evidence that exist in the present.  We have to take those pieces and see which "theory" best explains the evidence, not the other way around!  This forum is a great place to do that!  As you know, I consider myself a Creationist.  Go ahead and bring up the evidence, and we'll compare notes and try to figure out which explanation best accounts for all of the evidence!



you have a good point there David_B_Thompson as well as Guest.
The theory of Evolution does have holes that scientists DO want not to expose to mankind. And actually, as they persist on this theory, they keep on criticizing the bible (but maybe not ALL of them) as if their theory is ALREADY a fact when they can't find enough evidence to crumple the point of the bible/the bible itself.
There are things that Science does not know in this world that the bible does. And there are also things that Science has that the bible does not. But to look at it carefully, the Bible(or God) has a far better know-how than Science.
Why don't you read the book "The Bible Code" by Michael Drosnin. It's very interesting and i can say very encouraging to believe in yet it's really hard to make conclusions - but I BELIEVE the BIBLE.


-------
Use your mind - don't let it rot, let those words flow - don't let them get stuck
And mind you people, debating IS cool... so don't waste that witty talent - develop it up to its best
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:25 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm back.
I think I should elaborate on my original observation regarding false binaries. As a species we are bound by our culture from before we begin to manipulate complex symbol systems to the time we die. Our language and social environment limit our perspectives. The fact is we should all start from a place were it is understood that we are incredably ignorant and that current evidence is all we have but is likely wrong. As for the failure of empiricism proving the supernatural, it is exactly this sort of binary that I am talking about. If there were only science and the supernatural then that would make sense but those are only words, arbitrary constructions. Existence need not conform to them. Only in a world of black and white can you say that if not black then white. But I suspect that we live in colour that we cannot yet see, in fact it makes sense to assume as much. For thousands of years we have been wrong and it is likely to continue. We should be treating any current understanding as simply that, merely current understanding, soon to pass. Now my understanding of current genetics, as flawed as the field may be, tells me that the christian creation myth is not possible. Due to the nature and distribution of human DNA as well as work being done with mitochondrial DNA it is not possible for the human race to be decended from two people alone. But I suppose that that is neither here nor there it would be easy enough I'm sure to find terribly convincing evidence against any position we can currently come up with, and that is my point, we're all wrong. Wrong as the day is long people. I think the best testament to our ignorance is gravity. Something so pervasive with effects that are constantly observable is beyond our understanding. I have never found that encouraging. So as I said before we should all take three steps back and veiw all conclusions as tentative because even the most common sense conclusions often turn out to be mistaken. That goes for science religion and everybody else. The key to any rational pursuit of the truth, not to say that that is best but, is to explore and then eliminate unsatisfactory explanations, it's not about proving anything. As such it seems to me that most current explanations can be tossed, perhaps their not all completely off the mark, containing some truth, but why discuss who is closer that only counts in horse shoes. We should be pressing forward and challenging all of our own beliefs. Well at least trying anyway. Thanx again for reading.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:01 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

david b. thompsen...

i don't understand what u mean by supernatrurtal. can u explain that? (i could check your other posts but i am in china and my intrertnetr is really slow so if u don'tr want tro reexzplain i undertstand).

how does evolution MAYBE being wrong point to a God/higher power?

even if there is a supernatural, why is it necessartily a Christian God? explain how you can logically make that leap.

do u agree (for whatever conspiracy reason u wantr tro believe in regardless) that trhe vastr majority of scientists believe in evolution? in most fields, history, etc., do you take the predominant opinion to be true? for example, if the vast majority of historians agreed trhe Justinian I dismissed his general Belisarius because he was afraid of his ambitiousness, would you basically accept that as true?

why do never comment on the possible bias of creationists? don't you think they also have a lot to lose if creationism is significantly debunked?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 04:31 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

both creationists and evolutionists have a lot to lose if their theory is significantly debunked. that is why both sides twist information and discoveries to support their theory


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:03 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures have given amazing evidence to prove it's validity. Arceological evidence proves that the acounts are accurate. Prophesy proves who the real God is. Look at the "prophesy fulfilled by Jesus" forum.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:59 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Faze

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 6:59 PM on January 5, 2003 :
 Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures have given amazing evidence to prove it's validity. Arceological evidence proves that the acounts are accurate. Prophesy proves who the real God is. Look at the "prophesy fulfilled by Jesus" forum.



I agree yet let's have a reality check. Not all people of today ARE believers. even though you provide them evidences, they will still doubt it because atheists might just believe that when they would actually see the Almighty, Himself. People of today believe more on Seeing IS Believing - you'd never be able to deny that.


-------
Use your mind - don't let it rot, let those words flow - don't let them get stuck
And mind you people, debating IS cool... so don't waste that witty talent - develop it up to its best
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 08:15 AM on January 6, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I won't take all of this point by point, since I would end up repeating myself!


Science and the Supernatural: the "SUPERnatural" is just that, above nature.
In science, (the word "science", by the way, means knowledge) there can be only two options for explaining an event or occurrence; natural or supernatural.  Evolution is the only natural explanation regarding the origin of life.  There are arguments within the evolutionary community of course, but evolution is basically  the natural explanation.  Thus, if evolution is proved to be false, then all that is left as a possibility is a supernatural explanation.  Alexander the Great, you made a good point: "even if there is a supernatural, why is it necessarily a Christian God? explain how you can logically make that leap."


You're right, to look at the scientific evidence alone, determine that evolution has to be false, and then determine that the Biblical account is 100% true would be a leap of logic.  


Disproving evolution only proves a supernatural cause, and not necessarily a Biblical one.  In order to figure out which of the many supernatural accounts to believe, we must examine their sources and the credibility of those sources.


Again, I believe in the Biblical account of Creation.  How do I know that this is the right one?  Because the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God, has supported those claims with evidence.


Take, for example, the nation of Assyria.  Years ago, "scholars" believed that Assyria never actually existed outside of the Bible, because there were no known artifacts or other evidence for its existence.  Then archaeologists stumbled on Assyria's capitol city!  Suddenly, there were tons (literally) of evidence!  Everything was just as the Bible had said.


That's just one example, there are many others.  Ocean currents were discovered because of a Biblical reference.  There's lots more!  I couldn't possibly type it all out here!  I'd recommend that you check out Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict".


My point is that all of the evidence that we have discovered over the years has reaffirmed that the Bible is what it claims to be: the Word of God.  Thus, I believe its account of Creation.


Do I agree that the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution?  No.  If you're counting every person who claims to be a "scientist", then it may be true that most of them believe, or at least profess to believe that evolution is in fact true.  For more on this, I'd strongly recommend a tape by Dr. Jay Wile called "Why I Am A Creationist When So Many Scientists Are Not".  You can order it here:  
"Why I Am A Creationist When So Many Scientists Are Not"


Would I accept the majority opinion on other issues?  Not usually.  Occasionally I might, but for the most part, I check out the evidence and base my decision on that.


Fallingup, you've stated that "it is clearly impossible for the world to have been created in 4,000 BC".  Why?  What makes it impossible?  By the way, if you take the Bible literally, than yes, it does say that God created the earth around 4000 B.C..  Add up the dates.
Evidence?  Sure.  The best piece of evidence for a young earth is that the earth can't possibly be very old!  Lots of evidence behind that one.  For example, the sun is shrinking at a pretty regular rate.  From that, we can determine that if the earth was really as old as evolutionists claim, than sometime around 75,000,000 years ago (I'm not 100% sure about the date, but it was somewhere around there) the sun would have been touching the earth!  I think that one speaks on its own.


Guest, it was genetics that demonstrated that all of mankind did descend from two people!


A word about evidence: it is never wrong!  Someone's interpretation of the evidence may be wrong, but the evidence never is!  (Though at times it may be incomplete)


So let's discuss the actual evidence and the possible interpretations!

Thanks everyone!  There have been some really good questions and observations so far!

God bless!



-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 3:20 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it is impossible for the earth to be that old simply because of the records of the ancient civilizations. take for instance, the Old Kingdom in Egypt. it began in 2600 BC...THIS IS A FACT. if the earth was created in 4000 BC, then noah's ark was in 3000 BC. that leaves only 400 years to build up an entire egyptian civilization!!! not to mention other great civilizations in india and china. there is simply not enough time.

i know what you are talking about when you say that if you add up the ages, then you come up with 4000 BC. but back then, it was common for records to skip non-important people who lived. very many people were skipped in these records. the earth is approximatly 70,000 years old


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 5:55 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fallingup, I'll ask you to cite your sources for your post.

I'll also point out that you've totally ignored the evidence that I brought forward regarding the sun.  (There's a lot more evidence regarding the age of the earth by the way)

The earth is young!

God bless!


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:56 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first of all, many creationists have even admitted that the shrinking sun theory is baloney.

but david, i dont think you realize that i believe the earth is young too, relative to what evolutionists believe. 60,000 years is much younger than 4 billion.

what do you mean cite my sources?? it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that the Old Kingdom in Egypt began in 2600 BC. and even before this, egyptians had been settled in the area for thousands of years. THIS IS A FACT. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE EARTH TO HAVE BEEN CREATED IN 4000 BC!!!


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:29 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again, cite your sources!  Common knowledge?  According to who?  How do they know that?
I'll be quite honest with you, I've never really studied this particular issue-yet-but I have studied the age of the earth, and there are many "clocks" which indicate that the earth is young!

By the way, where do you get your 60,000 years?

Another note on Egypt: Why couldn't Egypt have been set up within four hundred years?  How old is America?  How do we compare?


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 06:53 AM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

david, if you open up ANY history book about ancient civilizations you will find that it is FACT that the old kingdom began in 2600 BC. before that, an egyptian named Narmer conquered Egypt in 3100 BC and became king. this is before the time that six-day creationists claim that noah built the ark.

you wanna know where i get my 60,000 years? scientists are now confirming that every human on earth today descends from one man who lived 60,000. i found this in National Geographic Magazine. since this "adam" lived around 60,000 years ago, i believe that creation took place around then.

what about you david? why are you excused from having to prove your point. give me proof and evidence that these ancient civilizations were set up so quickly


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:34 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, most history textbooks today are full of false information.  For more on that go to some of the historical debates on this site.

Even aside from that, how do the writers of those textbooks know that?  What are they basing their claims on?  Carbon-14 dating perhaps?  (That's a real question)

Who are these "scientists" who are claiming that we all came from a man who lived 60,000 years ago?  How do they know that?  I would guess that they're the same people who are telling us that the earth is 4 billion years old.  Am I right?  (Another real question, since I don't know your sources beyond National Geographic which, the last time I checked, met the above specifications)

You need evidence to believe that a major nation could be set up in 400 years or less?  Look around you!  America is already over 200 years old!  Have we not qualified as a great nation yet?




-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 3:09 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from David_B_Thompson at 3:09 PM on January 8, 2003 :
You need evidence to believe that a major nation could be set up in 400 years or less?  Look around you!  America is already over 200 years old!  Have we not qualified as a great nation yet?





The population of the United States did not arise from two people. Do you believe in fairlies and elves too? Goblins maybe? Witches that fly on broomsticks? I don't know why people even try to debate this issue, because it comparible to arguing with a five-year old whether or not there is a Santa Claus. There is no Santa Clause and the Earth is NOT only 6000 years old. It is time for someone to evolve!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:10 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

david, i dont believe in evolution either but it is simply impossible for the earth to be only 6000 years old. like the guest said, the US did not arise from two people. it is not contradictory to believe in both creation and an older earth


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 5:16 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Cool-Hand-Dave

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from David_B_Thompson at 3:09 PM on January 8, 2003 :
First of all, most history textbooks today are full of false information.  For more on that go to some of the historical debates on this site.

Even aside from that, how do the writers of those textbooks know that?  What are they basing their claims on?  Carbon-14 dating perhaps?  (That's a real question)

Who are these "scientists" who are claiming that we all came from a man who lived 60,000 years ago?  How do they know that?  I would guess that they're the same people who are telling us that the earth is 4 billion years old.  Am I right?  (Another real question, since I don't know your sources beyond National Geographic which, the last time I checked, met the above specifications)

You need evidence to believe that a major nation could be set up in 400 years or less?  Look around you!  America is already over 200 years old!  Have we not qualified as a great nation yet?





david, you seem to be asking all the wrong questions.  what do you mean, exactly, by who wrote the textbooks, or who are they to write the textbooks.  they come from scientific fact.  now unless you know about some huge conspiracy on textbooks that proves the information contained inside those books to be false, i'd like to know how you know the information is false.  you want to know who the "scientists" are that claim the earth is 60k years old, i'd like to know who you are to say they are wrong?  about the egypt thing.  well, back in the day, say around 3k b.c., they weren't quite as technologically advancedas we were 200 years ago.  after all, our technology came from their technology, hence the reason we were able to develop at a faster rate.  


-------
Cool Hand Dave
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 5:40 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

welcome back dave. its nice to have another voice of reason back in these forums again


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 7:44 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest, we're talking about Egypt here!  Egypt was "started" by a group of people, not just two!

This debate is about evolution, so bring up the evidence!  How do you know that the earth is billions of years old?  How do you know that we evolved?  Bring in the evidence!  Explain how it happened!

Fallingup, why is it impossible for the earth to be under 10,000 years old?

Cool-Hand-Dave, I'm asking for evidence!  Forget the people for a while, look at the evidence!  We're discussing evolution here, so take a side and deal in evidence.  Who am I to question the "experts"?  I am an American who thinks for himself and comes to his own conclusions based on the evidence!  I have every right to do that, and so do you.

You think that evolution is based on "scientific fact", so tell me what those "facts" are and prove that they're "facts".  That's what the Creation\Evolution debate is all about!

A conspiracy?  Actually, there is.  But I'm not going to go into that here.  Go check out the "Are Public Schools Failing?" debate for more on that.

So the ancients weren't as technologically advanced as we were 200 years ago?  Actually, archaeologists have found things that suggest the opposite, such as an accurate analog computer, a model of an airplane, (from an Egyptian tomb-it worked) batteries, tools, etc.  all stuff that wasn't supposed to be there.  I found a site on the web that talks about some of them: http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/genesis/gen09f.html

And by the way, they moved whole stones that are larger than we can move today, even with all of our modern equipment!  Know how to build a pyramid?  They did.  We don't.

I think we've been getting slightly off the point.  This debate is about evolution, so let's see the supporting evidence.  (For example, "ape men"- pick one)

Let's start looking at the facts here and base our conclusions on those!

God bless!



-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 9:31 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

david, i have a feeling that you are changing the subject because you dont know how to respond to our challenge of your 6,000 year theory. sure, the title of this debate is "evilution", but what we were discussing was the age of the earth.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:21 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry Fallingup!  It wasn't my intention to avoid your challenges!  

I do want to get on with the other aspects of evolution, but I'll be happy to give you the evidence on this part as well.


Okay, Clock #1:

Cosmic dust.  The earth has been gathering dust from outer space.  The amount of dust is difficult to tell, however, because of erosion and other factors.  The moon is also gathering dust, and at a regular rate.  NASA scientists have used this particular process to measure the age of the moon.  Based on evolutionary numbers, (Yes, much bigger than yours, Fallingup) they determined that there should be at least 54 feet of this dust sitting on the moon.  Needless to say, they were concerned about what would happen when the astronauts landed!  They needn't have worried, however, because when the astronauts arrived, they found only about an eighth of an inch to three inches of dust.  This amounts to under 8,000 year's worth.


Clock #2:

The earth's magnetic field.  Since we started measuring this field in 1835, it has been decaying steadily.  Working backwards from that, scientists have placed the maximum possible age of the earth at around 10,000 years.  (Also, at that strength, the field would have been lethal; there could have been no life on the planet)


Clock#3:

River deltas. The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year—continually enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large. Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years (4,620 years, to be exact).


Clock#4:

The sun.  I mentioned this before.  The sun is shrinking steadily.  At this rate, only 50,000 years ago earth's oceans would have been boiling!  There couldn't have been any life even 25,000 years ago!


I've only listed a few of the evidences for a young earth.  (10,000 years or less)


The age of the earth is only one of the many problems with evolution.  So far, no one has touched the biological impossibility of abiogenesis, let alone so-called "ape men".


God bless!


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 3:13 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Egads!  Hovind isn't dead yet?

Cosmic dust.  The earth has been gathering dust from outer space.  The amount of dust is difficult to tell, however, because of erosion and other factors.  The moon is also gathering dust, and at a regular rate.  NASA scientists have used this particular process to measure the age of the moon.  Based on evolutionary numbers, (Yes, much bigger than yours, Fallingup) they determined that there should be at least 54 feet of this dust sitting on the moon.  Needless to say, they were concerned about what would happen when the astronauts landed!  They needn't have worried, however, because when the astronauts arrived, they found only about an eighth of an inch to three inches of dust.  This amounts to under 8,000 year's worth.

That Story was based on a single measurment by Hans Pettersson using a device to measure smog.  He eroneusly came to the conclusion that the influx to Earth was 15 million tons per year.  In the same paper, he said himself that it was a "generous" overestimate and revised it to 5 million tons.

Later measurements with better instruments have reached  a influx rate (for the Earth) at 20 - 40 thousand tons a year.

The earth's magnetic field.  Since we started measuring this field in 1835, it has been decaying steadily.  Working backwards from that, scientists have placed the maximum possible age of the earth at around 10,000 years.  (Also, at that strength, the field would have been lethal; there could have been no life on the planet)

There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic fields reverse themselves.

River deltas. The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year—continually enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large. Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years (4,620 years, to be exact).

And what makes you think that the Mississippi delta has been there since the Earth was formed?

This is based on two naive assumptions.

Assumption #1:  The shrinkage is on-going.  If you watch the tide go out, then natrually, the ocean is losing water at a incredible rate, yes?

Assumption #2: The shrinkage is a established fact.  When Eddy and Boornazian came up with their findings, it was part of a abstract for further discussion and not a polished paper.  This hasn't stopped Creationists from jumping on it though.  Later sudies have shown no shrinkage of the sun.

I've only listed a few of the evidences for a young earth.  (10,000 years or less)

And they have all been disputed.

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?

The age of the earth is only one of the many problems with evolution.

It would be if you had any evidence of a young Earth.

evolution.  So far, no one has touched the biological impossibility of abiogenesis,

That's because abiogenesis has no bearing on evolution.

let alone so-called "ape men".

Which one?

Australopithecines?
Homo Erectus?
Homo Habilis?


Porky Pine

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:22 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oops.  That last part was about the assumptions was about the shrinkage of the sun and not the Mississippi delta.

Porky Pine

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:25 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Cool-Hand-Dave

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well david, like you, i have formed my own opinions and i have expressed them in this forum until i am worn from it.  you want my beliefs look on the earlier pages of this debate.  the fact is, i can't prove the earth's age, whether we evolved or not, or anything else.  and frankly, i don't care.  i don't think those matters affect me all that much. sure, they led to the here and now, but it is the here and now, not the then and there.  so basically, i'm concerned with the here and now at the moment.  


-------
Cool Hand Dave
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 5:26 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Come on David Thompson you know the moon dust argument is flawed and has been debunked decades ago.

For anyone interested the old debunk of this flawed argument you can read in detail here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html

 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 09:09 AM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh Crikey you used the Earths electromagnetic field argument too!

This has been easily debunked too. Also if it *were* true then it puts Earth at 50,000 years old not 6000.

Will you be blessing us with the equally flawed "sea salt increase" argument next?


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 09:14 AM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Superdude

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 10:40 PM on November 24, 2002 :
nice research and all but u misunderstood what i was trying to say. i told you to give me evidence that supports your theory, which is evidence. instead, you choose to attack creationism. i am starving for evidence that supports evolution, but you cant seem to provide any.

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 10:40 PM on November 24, 2002 :
nice research and all but u misunderstood what i was trying to say. i told you to give me evidence that supports your theory, which is evidence. instead, you choose to attack creationism. i am starving for evidence that supports evolution, but you cant seem to provide any.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

Do you have any evidence to support the creationist fairy tales?



 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 11:49 AM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Superdude

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 2:06 PM on January 4, 2003 :
why are they wrong about the 60,000 years? the problem is, most creationists believe that the world was created in 4,000 BC. but the fact is, the Bible does not preach that at all. God created the world and mankind around 60,000 BC. it is clearly impossible for the world to have been created in 4,000 BC. give me one piece of evidence that it is


Where'd you get the 60 000 year figure? The earth is billions of years old.

 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 11:50 AM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Superdude

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you have a good point there David_B_Thompson as well as Guest.
The theory of Evolution does have holes that scientists DO want not to expose to mankind.


Any evidence for your silly accusations?

There are things that Science does not know in this world that the bible does. And there are also things that Science has that the bible does not. But to look at it carefully, the Bible(or God) has a far better know-how than Science.


ROTFL! The bible has never gotten it right where science challenged it. It's always wrong.

Why don't you read the book "The Bible Code" by Michael Drosnin. It's very interesting and i can say very encouraging to believe in yet it's really hard to make conclusions - but I BELIEVE the BIBLE.


Why?

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 11:54 AM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Superdude

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from fallingupwards84 at 2:34 PM
you wanna know where i get my 60,000 years? scientists are now confirming that every human on earth today descends from one man who lived 60,000.


First, that has nothing to do with the age of the earth, at most it shows that humans have only been around that long. Second, that's NOT what NG is claiming. That humans all descended from a single maie is absolute nonsense.

There is simply no evidence that the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old. Which, btw, is determined by geology independent of evolution.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 12:00 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Superdude

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from David_B_Thompson at 9:31 PM on January 8, 2003 :
This debate is about evolution, so bring up the evidence!  How do you know that the earth is billions of years old?  How do you know that we evolved?  Bring in the evidence!  Explain how it happened!


Go to http://www.talkorigins.org
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 12:04 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Go to http://www.trueorigin.org/
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:07 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok superdude, thanks for posting a million times in a row. i think we all appreciated it.

i think the evidence that all humans descend from one man 60,000 years ago is evidence for creation. it proves that an "adam" did in fact exist.

you wanna know why you are too stubborn to accept a younger earth that is less than 100,000 years old? because if it is indeed less than 100,000 years old then that means there would be no time for evolution and evolution would be impossible. you are scared that evolution could be disproved. because evolution is the only way that atheists believe the world came into being. if evolution is disproved, then that means that the world was created by some divine force (not necessarily the Christian creation story, but it could be). you are too afraid to admit this so you hang on to your close-minded and ignorant views and refuse to accept new information that is being discovered in science today.



-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:21 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you wanna know why you are too stubborn to accept a younger earth that is less than 100,000 years old?

Because all the evidence supports a Earth that is billions of years old?

because if it is indeed less than 100,000 years old then that means there would be no time for evolution and evolution would be impossible.

Yes.  Well, as soon as you can provide evidence of a Earth that's less than 100,000 years old, you can shake it in his face.

BTW, do you believe in Noah's ark?  If so, what would be the speciation rate given the numbers of the species that were on the ark vs. the number of species on the planet now?

you are scared that evolution could be disproved. because evolution is the only way that atheists believe the world came into being.

Evolution isn't concerned with how the world came into being.

if evolution is disproved, then that means that the world was created by some divine force (not necessarily the Christian creation story, but it could be).

Once again, evolution isn't concerned with how the world came into being.

you are too afraid to admit this so you hang on to your close-minded and ignorant views and refuse to accept new information that is being discovered in science today.

I'd like to consider myself open-minded.  Please, present your evidence that the Earth is less than 100,000 yrs old.

Porky Pine
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:22 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BTW, welcome Superdude.  I think I know who you are

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:26 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if you wouldnt mind, i would like for you to present your "evidence" that the earth is billions of years old.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:03 AM on January 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kent Hovind is a fraud.  He has this fake claim to offer $25.000 reward tp prove evolution, but he will never tell people how to claim the prize or what proof they have to offer.  His academic credentials are phony.

Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:38 AM on January 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if you wouldnt mind, i would like for you to present your "evidence" that the earth is billions of years old.

I asked you first.  Why are you dodging?

BTW, I'm just curious.  Who is that man in your avatar?

Porky Pine

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:40 AM on January 11, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee3.htm

there is a website providing evidence for a young earth.

please guest, we have no room for hypocrites in these forums. if you are not going to provide evidence to back up your theories then dont bother debating at all. there is nothing i hate more than ignorance, close-mindness, and hypocricy

the only reason why scientists say our earth is billions of years old is because evolution requires billions of years. there is no evidence that the earth is billions of years old.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 8:32 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

david...
how do u know the "experts" who talk about cosmic dust and magnetic fields are correct or telling the truth? why are u so quick to ask falling where he got the info on the Egyptians but your "facts" seem unassailable. he read something just like u read something.
if evolution is wrong, why does that point to a supernatural cause? couldn't there be another natural cause we don't know/understand yet? isn't that just as likely as a supernatural cause we don't know/understand yet?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:48 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee3.htm

there is a website providing evidence for a young earth.


Oh good!  We get to have a link war!

The Age of the Earth

There!  Consider your link refuted!  Now, that's the way to have a debate!

I've looked over your link and it's the same exact crap that Hovind vomits up that's been refuted 10 yrs ago.  They have no references to any of this except for a "encyclpedia" from a creation site.  It would carry much more weight if they referenced actual science papers, but then, creationists don't publish their findings in scientific papers. do they?

Here's a example of what they consider "evidence" for a young Earth:

1 - River deltas. The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cm] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year—continually enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large. Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years (4,620 years, to be exact). If the world was 120,000 years old, that delta would extend all the way to the North Pole.—pp. 27-28.

Do they think that the Mississippi delta has been there for the whole of the planets history?



please guest, we have no room for hypocrites in these forums.

My!  Getting testy, are we?  Does this include you also?  I haven't seen you back up your evidence yet except for a link.

if you are not going to provide evidence to back up your theories then dont bother debating at all.

I've provided mine and yours is found to be lacking.  Care to provide anything better than recycled Hovind?

there is nothing i hate more than ignorance, close-mindness, and hypocricy

You must hate yourself then. (Note: I'm acting like this because you seem to have picked up a real attitude problem to someone who just wants to see your evidence.  Start acting nice and I will also.)

the only reason why scientists say our earth is billions of years old is because evolution requires billions of years.

Ah yes!  The old "Athiestic scientific establishment " conspiracy theory.

If a scientist could produce actual positive evidence of a young Earth that would over-throw evolution, it would be Nobel - winning stuff.  They would fight each other for the chance!  So far though, no one can do it.

there is no evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

There is no evidence the Earth is young.  There!  Consider yourself refuted!


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:02 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Faze

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Superdude at 7:54 PM on January 10, 2003 :
you have a good point there David_B_Thompson as well as Guest.
The theory of Evolution does have holes that scientists DO want not to expose to mankind.


Any evidence for your silly accusations?

There are things that Science does not know in this world that the bible does. And there are also things that Science has that the bible does not. But to look at it carefully, the Bible(or God) has a far better know-how than Science.


ROTFL! The bible has never gotten it right where science challenged it. It's always wrong.

Why don't you read the book "The Bible Code" by Michael Drosnin. It's very interesting and i can say very encouraging to believe in yet it's really hard to make conclusions - but I BELIEVE the BIBLE.


Why?

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html



btw, i wasn't giving "silly accusations". It was my opinion not some silly accusations I think you know the difference of these two words: opinion - accusation.

*juz a reaction to superdude


-------
Use your mind - don't let it rot, let those words flow - don't let them get stuck
And mind you people, debating IS cool... so don't waste that witty talent - develop it up to its best  


Posts: 22 | Posted: 08:34 AM on January 12, 2003 |
IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

guest, i would like you to tell me another "natural" cause besides evolution that would be possible. too bad you probably cant tell me. because if we did not evolve then that MUST mean that we were created. this does not mean created in the same way that genesis describes at all, but it would mean we were created.

listen folks, i am not close-minded on this issue at all. i believe it is very very possible that God could have used evolution. i cannot put limits on what God can do. the problem is that i just cannot see the evidence to support evolution! i promise you, if you give me solid solid evidence of evolution, i will seriously consider it and probably believe that God did use evolution. but as for now i just cant see it.

while i believe God could have used evolution to create the world, i just think that creation makes more sense. we already have DNA evidence from non-biased scientists that all humans  today descend from one man who lived 60,000 years ago. if you guys have not read that article yet in national geographic, i highly suggest it. it is solid evidence that an "adam" did in fact exist at one point in time.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:46 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

guest, i would like you to tell me another "natural" cause besides evolution that would be possible. too bad you probably cant tell me. because if we did not evolve then that MUST mean that we were created. this does not mean created in the same way that genesis describes at all, but it would mean we were created.

What's this got to do with the age of the Earth?

listen folks, i am not close-minded on this issue at all. i believe it is very very possible that God could have used evolution. i cannot put limits on what God can do. the problem is that i just cannot see the evidence to support evolution! i promise you, if you give me solid solid evidence of evolution, i will seriously consider it and probably believe that God did use evolution. but as for now i just cant see it.

I understand.  Evolution is a tough subject that crosses many scientific disciplines.  It takes many years of careful study to grasp it.  However, you can't disprove a theory based on the fact that you just can't believe in it.  That's the lazy way out.  I'm terribly ignorant in Quantum Mechanics and just trying to make sense of it gives me a headache.  However, my inability to grasp it doesn't mean I can just poo-poo it.  Like it or not, Evolution is the best explanation for the compexity of life on the planet.  If you look at all the creationist literature, you will find no evidence for a creation event.  You will find people trying to poke holes in evolution.  This is no way to build a scientific theory.

we already have DNA evidence from non-biased scientists that all humans  today descend from one man who lived 60,000 years ago. if you guys have not read that article yet in national geographic, i highly suggest it.

I unfortunatly, no longer have a subscription to NG so I can't read the article.

it is solid evidence that an "adam" did in fact exist at one point in time.

Is this what NG said, or is this you trying to find evidence to support the bible?




 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:35 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no, i am simply finding evidence that the biblical account can be taken figuratively. you can find the article online.

i wish you wouldnt steer around the question of another natural cause  besides evolution. do you agree that if evolution was disproved then scientists would be up the creek and would not have another theory to hold on to?

i just want to let you know that i am not close-minded to the theory of evolution. i have studied it quite a bit and have discussed it with many other people who believe in evolution. however, i believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for life to have began or evolution to have occured by CHANCE. maybe divine influence, but not completely natural.




-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:45 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

falling:
that guest was me. i don't see how i have to provide a concrete alternative to evolution. scientists don't know everything, and they are always learning new things. we didn't always know what caused lightning - but would you say that ignorance meant lightning must have been caused by Zeus getting pissed? evolution not being true does not make the only other alternative divine creationism. i thought about this for ten seconds and thought of another just as probable explanation: aliens were fooling around with DNA and created some humans and placed them on the earth. how's that?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 09:48 AM on January 13, 2003 | IP
debategirl88

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If anybody wants to see what I think check out 6000 yrs post. I explain what I believe to be true.  


-------
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
-Thomas Jefferson
 


Posts: 157 | Posted: 8:16 PM on January 13, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Falling...so are you a young Earth Creationist?  WHat is it that you believe?

Sarah
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 11:45 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
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.