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
     6000 years?
       Where did that come from

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

    
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Young Earth Creationism: The Earth is 6000 years old.

How was this date reached? Do the young earth creationists on this site know?

Firstly, it isn't stated in the Bible. It isn't even indirectly stated. Many Christian churches that exist today refrain from trying to date the Earth using the Bible.

The origins of the 6000 year figure stem from a monk called Bede who lived in Northumbria, England in the 7th Century AD. He somehow came up with the date of creation being 18 March 3952BC.

One thousand years later James Ussher used the Bible to calculate the creation to a similarly precise date, 23 October 4004BC.

Which one do you want to choose creationists and what is the method used to make such calculations? And why do you base your belief not on the Bible but on two human beings born centuries ago?
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 5:35 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

good point void. the bible does not state that the earth is 6000 years old at all


-------
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: 11:16 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Dracil

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can thank James Ussher, Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland who came up with this in 1654.  He calculated that the Earth was created in 4004 BCE by adding up the Biblical genealogies.  There is one big important problem with this technique though.  The Biblical genealogies are incomplete.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 5:29 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the biblical geneologies are very incomplete. it is a fact that back in those times, they did not mention insignificant people. the geneology in genesis (which was written in hebrew) uses the word "begat" not "fathered". begat can mean that the person was an ancesetor of the next person


-------
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: 8:33 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only reason for a young earth belief would be a literal interpretation of the bible.  I don't believe anyone could possibly believe the bible is completely literal.  For an example of why, consider these two verses:

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." Revelation 7:1

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppes; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." Isaiah 40:42

Are these verses contradictions?  Most christians would respond no, on the grounds that the verses do not really mean that the world is respectively, four-cornered and circular.  These verses are obviously interpreted as poetic, or figurative.  The reason for such an interpretation is obvious, since not even the most faithful bible believers would accept that the earth is a square circle.

This in merely one of many examples to be found in the bible, but it alone shows fairly well why nobody believes the bible to be completely literal truth.  Any serious bible reader simply must grant that there is figurative language found.  This is not a particularly damaging admission even for the inerrantist.  After all, a figuratively true verse is just as inerrant as a literally true one.  So it seems we can discard the qualification of "literalness" from our description of the bible.

With literalness gone, we are left with a doctrine of inerrancy, which is quite a rigid viewpoint.  But even within its boundaries new doors suddenly swing open.  For example, what if Genesis, including such stories as the 6 day creation, the talking snake, and the global flood, is poetry.  What if these verses are best interpreted as having figurative rather than literal meaning?  If there is good reason to suppose that this is the case, than religious pseudo science, young earth creationism specifically, would be an unnecessary belief even for the most fundamentalist believers.  Such pseudo scientific theories could be directly analogous to concluding from the verses above that the world is a square circle.

What source of evidence could give a person good reasons to suppose that Genesis is a matter of figurative truth.  The answer is science.  Science is the observation of the natural universe.  Within the fundamentalist paradigm, this would mean that science is nothing more than the observation of what god made.



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 04:34 AM on January 13, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

guest, i dont take the entire bible literally. but if someone did (for example the entire book of genesis), there would still be no reason to believe the earth is only 6000 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: 09:40 AM on January 13, 2003 | IP
Dracil

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually guest, many people do take the Bible literally, there are quite a few of them on messageboards and chat rooms I frequent.  Some of these people also insist the Bible should be used as a historical and scientific textbook.

And then when you point out the problems in doing so, they then claim that you're playing "word games" with them and accuse you of being unscientific and being close-minded.  Sometimes they'll even go as far as to question your "Christianness"

(Edited by Dracil 1/13/2003 at 5:59 PM).

(Edited by Dracil 1/13/2003 at 6:00 PM).
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 5:56 PM on January 13, 2003 | IP
debategirl88

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you believe the Bible, it says that Adam was made as a man and  that the chicken came before the egg (little debate humor about the chicken egg thing). God created everything mature. Even when He made Eve from Adam the Bible says God made a Woman not a girl. What i am trying to get across to you is that when scientist do testing on rocks and earth, its gonna come up really old. It was created mature just like Adam and Eve and the chicken. It doesn't mean it was around for millions of yrs. It was mature when it was made. It does sound kinda confusing but i learned this in my earth science class in 8th grade.


-------
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: 8:10 PM on January 13, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But why has noone found fossils of chickens if they are old?
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 10:40 PM on January 13, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

debategirl, i agree that God made everything mature. but 6000 years ago? no way. i still think it is more like 10 times that. but anyway.




-------
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: 12:05 AM on January 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Debate girl, why would God create a universe that for all practicle purposes, looks like it's billions of years old?

This is a very decitful god you believe in.

Porky Pine

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:14 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
debategirl88

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pork, thats for people who actually believe inGod. This is for non believers. What about the sun? The  sun is to young for the world to be as old as you say it is.

falling, if you believe it was created mature, than why do you believe that it is so old? Some people say that since a day is like a thousand yrs to God then the earth must be millions of yrs old. If you read the first ch. of Genesis it says after everyday of creation it says " and the evening and the morning were the first day (whatever day it is).  That says it all.


-------
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: 7:11 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from debategirl88 at 7:11 PM on January 14, 2003 :
thats for people who actually believe inGod. This is for non believers. What about the sun? The  sun is to young for the world to be as old as you say it is.

Empirical evidence for this claim???

Sarah



 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 7:36 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pork, thats for people who actually believe inGod. This is for non believers.

I'm unclear as to what you are saying here.  What exactly is for believers and what is for non-believers?

What about the sun?

What about it?

The  sun is to young for the world to be as old as you say it is.

Please don't tell me you're going to bring up the shrinking sun argument.  You're beating a dead horse here.  Even AIG tells believers not to use that argument.  Look on the last page of the Evilution thread.  I've already answered that one and a few others as well.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:12 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just as it says in the Bible the word of God, the earth is just over 6,000 years. The earth cannot possably be Billions of years old nor can the Universe and this has been proven through many different things. Of course people will always be comeing up with ways of making these seem wrong or untrue but there is nothing that proves an old earth or an old universe. It just comes down to faith. I believe every last word of the Bilbe to be the word of God and true. There are many many parts of the Bible that have come true over 400 years after the writers wrote it. One example is the Springs of the Ocean God speaks of that we only recently found in the 1970's. I don't see how anyone would want to beleive these unproven theories of evolution/Big Bang that give life no purpose or meaning. A 6,000 year old earth is easily possable and believed by all until around the 1800s when someone came up with a theory of an old universe as to make evolution possable. But those who choose to believe this crude can, "we all came from rocks and someday the entire universe will be crushed into a dot." I guess you will find out the truth when you die and it is too late.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:33 PM on November 7, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just as it says in the Bible the word of God, the earth is just over 6,000 years.
Absolutely wrong, this was proven to be false over 200 years ago.  
The earth cannot possably be Billions of years old nor can the Universe and this has been proven through many different things.
It can and is billions of years old (roughly 4.5 billion years old and the universe is roughly 13 billion years old.)  Again you are spectacularly wrong when you say "this has been proven through many different things", give us some information on this proof, the Bible doesn't count as evidence...
It just comes down to faith.
No it doesn't, it comes down to whether you want to believe the evidence, your senses, modern scientific method, and logic or primitive myths written over 3000 years ago by bronze age sheepherders...
There are many many parts of the Bible that have come true over 400 years after the writers wrote it.
but none of the prophecies in the Bible have come true, that's just the old con game of making your predictions vague enough so they can mean anything...
I don't see how anyone would want to beleive these unproven theories of evolution/Big Bang that give life no purpose or meaning.
Let's see, 'proof' has no place in science, all theories stand or fall on the evidence, evolution has been directly observed so it's a fact and no scientific theory even tries to give life purpose!  
A 6,000 year old earth is easily possable and believed by all until around the 1800s when someone came up with a theory of an old universe as to make evolution possable.
No, a 6000 year old Earth is plainly impossible!
It was believed by everyone until Christian geologists realized after studying the land around them that the Earth couldn't possibly be only 6000 years old.  This was before Darwin put forth the theory of evolution.
guess you will find out the truth when you die and it is too late.
Any god who would eternally punish one of his own for using their common sense and believing the overwhelming evidence all around them ain't worth worshipping.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, I would think anyone who would want to argue against an old earth or evolution would take the time to learn about what they're argueing against.  

(Edited by admin 11/8/2003 at 07:52 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:10 AM on November 8, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You look at all these theories aa facts and not one has been proven. There is nothing to prove evolution AND NO EVOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OBSEVED! Evolution is a religion because it is a belief just like any other religion. It is not sience because it is only a belief, you can not use an expirement that proves evolution and it was proven wrong many years ago but you anti-God people havn't found anything better to replace it with. You say that it isn't possable for a youg earth but you have given no facts to support this belief nor have you given any facts that the earth could be so old.
Well here are just a very few that eliminate an old Universe:
1)The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates that the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years.
2)The existance of short-period comets
3)Fossil meterorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth, indicating that the layers were not exposed for millions of years.
4)The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years age the moon would have been so close making the tides so high that they would erode away the continents/continent.
5)The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years.
6)At the rate that many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.
7)Saturn's rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.
8)The decaying magnetic feild limits earth's age to less then billions.
9)The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils.
10)The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years.
11)The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution.
12)The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in 4400 years.
13)The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old they would be much saltier then they are.
14)Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood stories are known.
15)Biblical dates add up to ablout 6,000 years.
That is just a few things known today that eliminate any possability of an "ancient earth."
And really it would only take one to prove this. If someone believes that they have some evidence of an old earth I would like to hear it.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:23 PM on November 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Short period comets come from the Oort cloud.

It's presence was predicted by astronomers 50 years ago and  directly observed over 10 years ago.

That why this and your other arguments are on the list of "Arguments creationists shouldn't use". :-)

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:50 AM on November 12, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oops, make that Kuiper belt, not the Oort cloud.  The technology to observe the Oort cloud won't be launched for several more years.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:52 AM on November 12, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok you make up some magic cloud and give 0 proof of existance and suddenly you disprove a young universe? Yeah ok will then I guess that we all came from a rock 6 billion years age! oh wait there is 0 proof of that crap to don't we.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:33 PM on November 13, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"There is nothing to prove evolution AND NO EVOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OBSEVED!"
Geez, don't you ever get tired of being wrong?!  We do see evolution happening today, look up speciation events on the internet, or look up nylon eating bacteria.  We use evolution in medicine and it's been said nothing makes sense in biology except when viewed through evolution.  DNA and our genetic makeup is elegant evidence for evolution.  The many transitional lifeforms we see today and in the fossil record have no other explaination except evolution.  The list goes on and on and you have nothing except your own ignorant disbilief to refute it with.

"Evolution is a religion because it is a belief just like any other religion."
No, evolution is not a religion, no supernatural deities involved, nothing is taken on faith.  It is a scientific theory that explains a vast amount of evidence which shows life changes, and all life descended from a common ancestor.  

"You say that it isn't possable for a youg earth but you have given no facts to support this belief nor have you given any facts that the earth could be so old.
Well here are just a very few that eliminate an old Universe:"

All your arguements for a young Earth are wrong!  Every one of them! (well, except for the one about the bible, but the bible is really not empirical evidecne...).  Everyone of them has been refuted, proven wrong, falsified time and time again.  Look up the Pratt list to see everyone of them ripped to shreds.
I get tired of repeating the reasons they are wrong, so just look up Pratt list on the internet and then stop using debunked crap.

As to evidence of an old earth?  Here you go!
We have dated rocks native to the earth back to 3.5 billion years old, we have dated meteors back even further, 4.2 billion years old, with multiple radiometric dating techniques.  Since radiometric dating is an excellent way to determine the age of materials, these are very good estimates for the age of the earth.  Please don't claim that radiometric dateing is wrong unless you have some reliable evidence.  We see mountains that have taken 10's of thousands of years to form.  We have the geologic column that gives us an excellent view of the geologic periods our planet went through.  We see massive meteor impact craters that if they had occurred less than 10 thousand years ago, we would still be reeling from the effects, since we are not we must conclude they happened millions of years ago.  Come on, no rational person claims the Earth is only 6 - 10 thousand years old!  Thats a primitive myth that has no support in the 21st century.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:51 AM on November 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't have make up anything about the Kuiper belt, it is an observed fact.

Kuiper Belt homepage


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:09 AM on November 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can't be serious that you belive that radiometric dating along with other types are accurate, but then again you belive evolution. You must have been grosly misinformed so let me give you the facts. Carbon dating is only accurate up to 40,000 years even if you said it was 100,000 years accurate this would still not help your theory because the things that evolution says took place "millions" and "billions" of years ago. Scientists have been noted of saying that they will put the things that fit there theory into the books and throw out the things that don't.
If anything it helps proove a young earth because it hasn't yet even reached a point of equilibrium. Also it is based on assumtions like the rate of decay always being the same.

here are things you probably havn't heard about:

Potassium Argon dating: "Potassium Argon dating is based on many of the same assumptions and gives wild dates shown below. Since so many wrong dates are found, how would we know which dates are "correct?"

For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266

Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old.

Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old.

Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999, See: www.icr.org for lots more on dating methods.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800's over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. "Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object's supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased. For more information, see video tape #7 of the CSE video series on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs; Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, or Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris (all available from CSE).

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61

Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637

A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211

"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.

"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.
--In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively."
--In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans."
--Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."
--O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:47 PM on November 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another example of Hovind caught lying

The Same Mammoth Lived 29,500 and 44,000 years ago?

Update: Since I originally wrote this article, the author of “The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods” emailed me and said that he is removing the claim. He also admitted using Hovind as his reference. He should be praised for correcting this error for it is something that is hard to get the professional creationists to do. His error is instructive. If a one does not personally check the original source, one should never cite that source as if one had done so. If someone wants to use a secondary citation, he should always indicate in his footnote the source that cited the original as well as the original and not merely copy another's citation. Not doing so will open an author to charges of dishonesty if the claim turns out to be false and possibly plagiarism if someone realizes that the author did not actually check check the sources himself. All authors must realize that if they cite a source they are making a claim to have checked that source.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:22 PM on November 15, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"You can't be serious that you belive that radiometric dating along with other types are accurate, but then again you belive evolution. You must have been grosly misinformed so let me give you the facts. Carbon dating is only accurate up to 40,000 years even if you said it was 100,000 years accurate this would still not help your theory because the things that evolution says took place "millions" and "billions" of years ago. Scientists have been noted of saying that they will put the things that fit there theory into the books and throw out the things that don't. "

Of course radiometric dating is accurate!  As for the facts, you obviously are talking out of your ass!  What does the fact that Carbon 14 dating is only accurate up to 40 or 50 thousands years ago have to do with anything, other methods are accurate over billions of years.  And name one scientist that ever said that they would throw out any data that contradicts their theory, until you do, you're just making it up.  And a young earth was disproven over 200 years ago, and in all that time there is still no evidence to support a young earth, none, nada, zippo.
As to your examples, well let's throw out all those that involve dating lava flows.  Experts know that lava flows can contain xenoliths, bits of older rocks that the lava flow can pick up.  The experts know that this can be a problem so they must be careful of the samples they take.  This is a known factor that can skew dating of lava samples, so care must be used in selecting samples.  So it's not the method that is flawed, it's the samples that are used.  You have failed to show us that radiometric dating is inherently flawed.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected."

Again you are wrong.  All radiometric dating is not subject to the geologic column.  The geologic column is a very useful tool in geology and paleontology, but samples dated give us dates independent of the geologic column.  Meteors found in the antartic were not contained in the geologic column, but in ice flows, they were dated at 4.2 billion years old by multiple methods.

"Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61

Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637"


Again you didn't do nearly enough research!
Anyone who uses carbon 14 dating knows that you can not use this method on aquatic organisms!  Mollusks live under water, so no expert would ever try to carbon date them.  You didn't say whether they were aquatic snails or not, but I'll bet they were.  And seals spend most of their time in the ocean, so none of these would be candidates for carbon dating.  Again, you fail to prove your point.
Radiometric dating has been used to date historiucally known events accurately.  It has been checked against other dating methods like ice cores, lake varves, coral reef formation, tree rings, and the dates produced invariably agree.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:31 AM on November 22, 2003 | IP
believer0986

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

do you know how they date fossils? by the dirt they find them in.  do you know how they date the dirt? by the fossils they find in the dirt. someone please explain how this makes since. and how can you believe someone 200 years ago that didn't believe in the bible. all he had was a theory that the earth was older. not proof.  and all other non believers went along with it and are trying to take people from their faith.  Seems like the devils work to me. there is so much proof against evolution.  you people just need to open your eyes
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 2:44 PM on May 19, 2005 | IP
believer0986

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

did you know that if you add up all the dates in the bible it would add up to about 6000 years.  no one just makes an assumption that the world is just 6000 years old.  it says it right in the bible.  it just doesnt clarify.  you know i would believe any day that in the beginning there was God than in the beginniing there was dirt.

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 2:50 PM on May 19, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from believer0986 at 2:50 PM on May 19, 2005 :
did you know that if you add up all the dates in the bible it would add up to about 6000 years.  no one just makes an assumption that the world is just 6000 years old.  it says it right in the bible.  it just doesnt clarify.  you know i would believe any day that in the beginning there was God than in the beginniing there was dirt.


Please. I'll admit that saying a mystical, larger-than-life higher authority is an easy and fun way of answering the question of our beginning, but the truth is like 8 million times cooler. Go evolution :-)..

(Edited by Box of Fox 5/19/2005 at 7:53 PM).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 7:51 PM on May 19, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from believer0986 at 2:50 PM on May 19, 2005 :
did you know that if you add up all the dates in the bible it would add up to about 6000 years.  no one just makes an assumption that the world is just 6000 years old.  it says it right in the bible.  it just doesnt clarify.  you know i would believe any day that in the beginning there was God than in the beginniing there was dirt.



Ok I'll acept that the earth is 6000 years old when you first prove that the bible is the truth and then secondly prove that all the dates are acturate.




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


Posts: 301 | Posted: 05:14 AM on May 20, 2005 | IP
Peaks

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So why is it so bad that the bible may be wrong about the age of the Earth?  You could really even say that it's not "wrong," but that it just doesn't tell you everything that happened.  Jesus jumps from being a child to being a 30-year-old, so why can't it just follow that they omitted a couple of billion of other relatively non-eventful years?

Some would suggest that a literal interpretation of the bible is the only acceptable option, but the key here is that even a strictly literal interpretation is still an interpretation!  You may say that you are simply following God's word, but what if the Bible is allegorical rather than historical?  Maybe that's my interpretation.  But if that's the case, we're all just making uninformed stabs at how we think it should be interpreted.

Science, including the theory of evolution, attempts to develop an intelligent, logically informed understanding of some aspect of the Universe.  We're not talking about a bunch of uninformed speculations here; science is based on evidence, and will freely admit that it is wrong if strong evidence disproves a previous theory.  

Please also note that Science is not trying to disprove your ideas of God; it has no way to prove why things happen, just how.  That's fine with me.  I can use it to understand why a ball falls to the ground when I drop it, and then wonder why I'm around in the first place to drop the ball.  Maybe the why has something to do with a God, but it most definitely has nothing to do with Science.  So stop trying to insinuate that Science tries to insert a religious agenda.




(Edited by Peaks 5/20/2005 at 1:51 PM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:49 PM on May 20, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look at Genesis 5 and you will realize how out of proportion the dates are...


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 1:08 PM on May 21, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 04:34 AM on January 13, 2003 :
The only reason for a young earth belief would be a literal interpretation of the bible.  I don't believe anyone could possibly believe the bible is completely literal.  For an example of why, consider these two verses:

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." Revelation 7:1

English changes. At the time it was written it meant four quadrants not four corners,. Either way it is  a fiqure of speech. Today one might say " I will follow you to the ends of the earth"
Obviously there is no end to the earth.
Everyday the paper list sunrise at a paticular time. The weather man is not stupid , he knows the sun does not rise. There is a famous book " The sun also rises" . I think you are splitting hairs but I appreciate you not starting the flat earth nonsense.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppes; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." Isaiah 40:42
In the original Hebrew the same word as circle can also mean sphere.
Luke 17:34–36 depicts Christ’s Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field—an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.


Are these verses contradictions?  Most christians would respond no, on the grounds that the verses do not really mean that the world is respectively, four-cornered and circular.  These verses are obviously interpreted as poetic, or figurative.  The reason for such an interpretation is obvious, since not even the most faithful bible believers would accept that the earth is a square circle.
I spoke to soon.
Washington Irving popularised the myth that Christians thought the world was flat with his story about Columbus arguing the point with misinformed clerics. It never happened even Encyclopedis Brittanica will tell you that.
Colubus argued that the Indies was much closer than the scientist did. He was wrong. No educated person believed the world was flat and there is little evidence the uneducated did either.
This story got started around 1870. What else happened then? Let me think? Oh yea, now I remember. That is when Haecklel was promoting Darwin with his fake embryo drawings , speechless apes, imaginary molecules [the morenon] etc.
All this was the politics of atheism , it still is. It really is lame.
Please note that Pasteur was busy  disproving evolution by falsifying spontaneous generation at the exact same time.

This in merely one of many examples to be found in the bible, but it alone shows fairly well why nobody believes the bible to be completely literal truth.  Any serious bible reader simply must grant that there is figurative language found.  This is not a particularly damaging admission even for the inerrantist.  After all, a figuratively true verse is just as inerrant as a literally true one.  So it seems we can discard the qualification of "literalness" from our description of the bible.
That is silly. Literal to you means the weatherman believes the sun rises. Jumping for joy means jumping for joy.
The goal in reading any literature is to understand the message as intended by the author.
Perhaps you take Shakespear the same way.
All this nonsense was started by 19th century atheistic naturalist to destroy Christianity. Nothing has changed.

With literalness gone, we are left with a doctrine of inerrancy, which is quite a rigid viewpoint.  But even within its boundaries new doors suddenly swing open.  For example, what if Genesis, including such stories as the 6 day creation, the talking snake, and the global flood, is poetry.  What if these verses are best interpreted as having figurative rather than literal meaning?  If there is good reason to suppose that this is the case, than religious pseudo science, young earth creationism specifically, would be an unnecessary belief even for the most fundamentalist believers.  Such pseudo scientific theories could be directly analogous to concluding from the verses above that the world is a square circle.
Now your starting to babble. Why not just throw the Bible in the trash and be an atheist? Sleep with whover you want . Lie whenever you want. If it feels good do it.
It is not just Genesis you have to disregard. You also have to say the Gospels are a lie. That Jesus Christ was not God and He was a liar.
-


What source of evidence could give a person good reasons to suppose that Genesis is a matter of figurative truth.  The answer is science.  Science is the observation of the natural universe.  Within the fundamentalist paradigm, this would mean that science is nothing more than the observation of what god made.

Science is not an answer for origins. You believe in scientism , not science.
Jesus Christ was the Creator of the Universe . He was not this weak god you say science will allow.
Amoung His many miracles were included creating living cells by His word. He raised Lazaruth and2 others from the dead. One He never saw.
Please say what you mean. Science has falsified Christianity as well as Orthodox Judaism.

Saying some god you created may or may not have created the first cell is ludicrus. If God is powerful enough to create something man will never be able to achieve then to say that is the limit of His power shows the limit of your ability to think for yourself.

To believe in evolution you must believe in spontaneous generation.
That matter created intelligence.




-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 01:23 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peaks at 1:49 PM on May 20, 2005 :
So why is it so bad that the bible may be wrong about the age of the Earth?  You could really even say that it's not "wrong," but that it just doesn't tell you everything that happened.  Jesus jumps from being a child to being a 30-year-old, so why can't it just follow that they omitted a couple of billion of other relatively non-eventful years?

Some would suggest that a literal interpretation of the bible is the only acceptable option, but the key here is that even a strictly literal interpretation is still an interpretation!  You may say that you are simply following God's word, but what if the Bible is allegorical rather than historical?  Maybe that's my interpretation.  But if that's the case, we're all just making uninformed stabs at how we think it should be interpreted.

Science, including the theory of evolution, attempts to develop an intelligent, logically informed understanding of some aspect of the Universe.  We're not talking about a bunch of uninformed speculations here; science is based on evidence, and will freely admit that it is wrong if strong evidence disproves a previous theory.  

Please also note that Science is not trying to disprove your ideas of God; it has no way to prove why things happen, just how.  That's fine with me.  I can use it to understand why a ball falls to the ground when I drop it, and then wonder why I'm around in the first place to drop the ball.  Maybe the why has something to do with a God, but it most definitely has nothing to do with Science.  So stop trying to insinuate that Science tries to insert a religious agenda.




(Edited by Peaks 5/20/2005 at 1:51 PM).


The simple point is that the whole Bible speaks of Creation , not just Genesis.
To reject creation you must reject the entire Bible. Jesus Christ is the Creator of the World.
Evolution does not allow that.
It only "allow" a weak god that does not argue with scientist.
In other words science tells you [what you call science] what it is acceptable to believe or not.
That is naturalism/ atheism , not science.

Call Jesus Christ a liar if you like. One day you will find out if He was God or not. You better hope not.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 01:31 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was reading thourgh and i didnt see anything about using the magnetic field.  Ive heard that they measured the magnetic field and of a period of time learned its deteration rate.  By this i believe they decided that the earth was under 10,000 years old.
I really dont know much about that and dont have many facts for it thats just something i heard before.

Another thing ive read about is the meteoritic dust.  The earth recieves about 14 billion tons per year.  If this is true and the earth is 5 billion years old then there should be about 182 feet thick layer of dust on the earth.  Which there is not.   It was feared when the astronauts landed they would sink into a deep layer of space dust but it ened up only being an eight of an inch.




-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 3:42 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

skins, too bad you can't count. The crrect measurement is 14 million tons. If you are going to cut and paste then do it right.

Yes I know it was on a creationist website.

Isaac Asimov calculated that at that rate it would actually be 54 feet.

Also, 5 million tons is a much more believable number.

Also, the thing about magnetic decay. You claim comes from a widely renounced scientist called Thomas Barnes.

And Barnes's data rests on the following falsified assumptions:

1) Exponential extrapolation is justified far beyond his data (x50)
2) A uniform decay of a process known to not change in a uniform manner
3) An out-of-favor model for the source of the earth's magnetic field
4) There is no force that "drives" the field (i.e., no energy input)
5) The non-dipole component of the field can be ignored
6) A better straight-line fit to the data can be ignored

Also, the poles of the earth have switched numerous times in the earth's history. In fact I heard that it may happen quite soon. It isn't dangerous.

(Edited by Lord Iorek 6/2/2005 at 5:34 PM).


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 5:25 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 3:42 PM on June 2, 2005 :
I was reading thourgh and i didnt see anything about using the magnetic field.  Ive heard that they measured the magnetic field and of a period of time learned its deteration rate.  By this i believe they decided that the earth was under 10,000 years old.
I really dont know much about that and dont have many facts for it thats just something i heard before.


The earth is likely entering a time of field reversal which has happened numerous times in the past on earth, and happens every 11 years on the sun.

Earth's magnetic field

Another thing ive read about is the meteoritic dust.  The earth recieves about 14 billion tons per year.  If this is true and the earth is 5 billion years old then there should be about 182 feet thick layer of dust on the earth.  Which there is not.   It was feared when the astronauts landed they would sink into a deep layer of space dust but it ened up only being an eight of an inch.


This is featured prominently on the AiG page of arguments that should'n be used.

Arguments Creationists Shouldn't Use


-------
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: 5:27 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Same place I found the claims made by skins.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 5:35 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all i didnt cut and paste.  
These are just two theories that id heard before and thought id put them out there.  Sorry if i made it sound like thats what i believe and theres no other explantaion type of thing.  I really havnt done much research yet about the age of the earth so i really dont know much about it.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 5:57 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Void at 10:40 PM on January 13, 2003 :
But why has noone found fossils of chickens if they are old?

Glad you asked.
They have.
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_01/015.htm




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:37 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Void at 10:40 PM on January 13, 2003 :
But why has noone found fossils of chickens if they are old?


Glad you asked.
They have.
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_01/015.htm


No they haven't.  According to the article, Vegavis is related to ducks and geese, nowhere in the article does it say they did not evolve.  True birds evolving in the late cretacious period in no way refutes the theory of evolution and fits in quite nicely with the evidence that supports evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:08 PM on June 8, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 1:08 PM on June 8, 2005 :
Quote from Void at 10:40 PM on January 13, 2003 :
But why has noone found fossils of chickens if they are old?


Glad you asked.
They have.
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_01/015.htm


No they haven't.  According to the article, Vegavis is related to ducks and geese, nowhere in the article does it say they did not evolve.  True birds evolving in the late cretacious period in no way refutes the theory of evolution and fits in quite nicely with the evidence that supports evolution.

So if it does not mention they did not they did?
It sure puts a whole in your dino bird fantasy.
What do you think they evolved into , therapods maybe? :}
Ever notice that every single one of the "feathered " dinosaurs comes from the same place as "Piltdown" Bird?
Or that the latest one use to be "Piltdown " Bird?
At least the front half. ROFL
Long ago anf far far away in China!




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:11 PM on June 8, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you think they evolved into , therapods maybe? :}

The article says it best, they evolved into modern water fowl.

Ever notice that every single one of the "feathered " dinosaurs comes from the same place as "Piltdown" Bird?

No idea what "piltdown bird" means, but Vegavis comes from Antartica.  If you mean Archaeopteryx, Archy was first found in Germany.  And a large amount of bird like dino fossils have been found in China.   So I don't understand what you're saying, other than you don't know geography...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:03 PM on June 8, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:03 PM on June 8, 2005 :
[
The article says it best, they evolved into modern water fowl.
Wow , a bird that is still a bird.


No idea what "piltdown bird" means, but Vegavis comes from Antartica.  If you mean Archaeopteryx, Archy was first found in Germany.  And a large amount of bird like dino fossils have been found in China.   So I don't understand what you're saying, other than you don't know geography...

I do not believe you don't know about "Piltdown" Bird. That would make you totally ignorant of recent events. Of course to you the last century was long ago and far away.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248079.stm

Archaeopteryx was a bird found in Germany.
The latest "feathered" Dinosaur from Liaoning Province. Home of "Piltdown bird and so many "genuine" Ming Dynasty Vase's there are enough for every person on earth to have a few dozen!
Microraptor gui-The front end of "Piltdown" Bird.

Discover Magazine:

Dr Alan Feduccia, who is an evolutionist himself, sounded a note of caution about the ‘feathered dinosaurs’ in general in an interview with the evolutionary Discover magazine (below, emphasis added).3 It certainly seems strange that all these ‘feathered dinosaurs’ come from a single province of China—the same place as the Archaeoraptor hoax came from. Indeed, the holotype (first named specimen) of Microraptor was in fact part of this hoax

Discover: So far, only one feathered dinosaur, Archaeoraptor, has been publicly acknowledged as a forgery. You think there are others?
Feduccia: Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it’s difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.

Journals like Nature don’t require specimens to be authenticated, and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them. They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any of this stuff.

Discover: Why would anyone fake a fossil?
Feduccia: Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit.

You should keep up, this evolution is funny stuff!

Long ago and far far away!







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:01 PM on June 8, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow , a bird that is still a bird.

But it's a primitive bird that evolved into modern birds, afterall, the article did say
"Clarke and her colleagues used some of the largest data sets available and all placed Vegavis within the radiation of living birds – as most closely related to ducks and geese."
And related to can only apply to evolutionary relationships, it is meaningless when viewed through special creation.
Now as to your meaningless rant about forgeries in China, what's your point?  Feduccia isn't saying any of the authentic feathered dinosaurs are fakes.  Most of these were excavated by paleontologists, not bought a market like Archaeorapter.  And of course it was real "evolutionists" who determined that Archaeoraptor was a fake.  So you take the word of evolutionists when it suits your need but ignore them when it's inconvenient.  None of the feathered dinos found and authenticated are fakes, no one (but you) is saying they are, and you, once again, have nothing to back up your claims.

You should keep up, this evolution is funny stuff!

To someone who believes in 3000 year old sheepherder myths, I guess reality must seem funny!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:20 PM on June 8, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:20 PM on June 8, 2005 :
Wow , a bird that is still a bird.

But it's a primitive bird that evolved into modern birds, afterall, the article did say
"Clarke and her colleagues used some of the largest data sets available and all placed Vegavis within the radiation of living birds – as most closely related to ducks and geese."
And related to can only apply to evolutionary relationships, it is meaningless when viewed through special creation.
Now as to your meaningless rant about forgeries in China, what's your point?  Feduccia isn't saying any of the authentic feathered dinosaurs are fakes.  Most of these were excavated by paleontologists, not bought a market like Archaeorapter.  And of course it was real "evolutionists" who determined that Archaeoraptor was a fake.  So you take the word of evolutionists when it suits your need but ignore them when it's inconvenient.  None of the feathered dinos found and authenticated are fakes, no one (but you) is saying they are, and you, once again, have nothing to back up your claims.

You should keep up, this evolution is funny stuff!

To someone who believes in 3000 year old sheepherder myths, I guess reality must seem funny!


Wow a bird evolving in to a bird. So you are a closet creationist?



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:40 AM on June 10, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler, first you don't believe it when evolutionists state species to species, and now you doubt the fact that evolution causes primitive birds to evolve to modern birds? Primitive, in a scientific sense, means old, not unadvanced. Evolution is right in front of your eyes. Go to Washington State for instance-- there are a number of species of newt that speciated from only one species into 4 different, new species of newt in the last 30 years. You can't doubt evolution. Did God just use his magical powers to poof 4 new newt species into existence?...Or do you want an explanation of how the newts evolved?
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 2:50 PM on June 10, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow a bird evolving in to a bird.

Just as evolution predicts...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:55 PM on June 10, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:55 PM on June 10, 2005 :
Wow a bird evolving in to a bird.

Just as evolution predicts...



So now you no longer believe in the common ancestor theory and accept the limited affects of natural Selection as described by Blyth.
You've been studying. I am impressed.


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:18 PM on June 10, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So now you no longer believe in the common ancestor theory and accept the limited affects of natural Selection as described by Blyth.
You've been studying. I am impressed.


By no means!  You STILL don't understand biology or evolution.  Of course birds are going to evolve into different birds, but what did those original birds evolve from?  You know, micro evolution and macroevolution are essentially the same, the same driving forces, the same mechanisms and as has been said before macroevolution has been observed.  What exactly is the barrier between macro and micro?  And what do you have to back up your assertions?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:30 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
GooglyMinotaur

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By no means!  You STILL don't understand biology or evolution.  Of course birds are going to evolve into different birds, but what did those original birds evolve from?  You know, micro evolution and macroevolution are essentially the same, the same driving forces, the same mechanisms and as has been said before macroevolution has been observed.  What exactly is the barrier between macro and micro?  And what do you have to back up your assertions?


My suggestion is to ignore the cretin. By all means they'll attempt to nitpick at evolutionary theory when it falters (as any science does), but as always fail to provide any positive evidence to support their own cause.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 4:39 PM on September 12, 2005 |
IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

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