Samuel Dravis Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 I'm not sure which comet you're talking about (if indeed you were talking about one in specific!), but I'll try anyway. Comets have varying orbits, from ones that take only years to ones that take decades, or centuries, or even milennia! From what I understand, most of the degradation comets experience occurs when they pass through the inner solar system, near the Sun. For some comets with massive orbits, that occurs very rarely. So rarely, in fact, that it's easily imaginable them to avoid breaking up for extremely long periods of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 My apologies in advance if I make arguements already presented by others. I've not read ahead. Okay, I'm not totally getting back in the fray, but here's a quick post. So, evolution says that there was a small dot with everything in the universe <snip> The Theory of Evolution says nothing of the sort. TOE is a scientific theory from the field of biology. The Big Bang Theory (which you're referencing here) talks about singularities, which is a matter for cosmology - a completely separate field of study. The chemicals evolved into the first life, basically a cell, that cell somehow evolved and formed two cells.Getting closer. This is abiogenesis. While biochemistry is much closer to biology, it is still a separate study and abiogenesis is a separate hypothesis. They just happened to be able to reproduce...and slowly over millions of years it evolved to what we are today... This is mostly correct. now, say I said that I saw a girl kiss a frog and smoke appeared, and a prince walked out of the smoke (you'd say that it's a fairy tale right?) but, if the frog slowly evolved to a man, now that's "science" Correct, for reasons that the analogy fails to grasp. NOTE: If I explained something wrong when talking about evolution, please tell me and I'll fix it I've replied briefly to each of your points. Hopefully I've provided sufficient explanation, however if I have not, please feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to expand as needed. That evolution is a jokeThis isn't an argument. Please help us understand why you think evolution is a joke. Then we can have a constructive dialog. Simply coming in a pooping on something without any reason tells me that you a) have already made up your mind and b) aren't actually interested in learning anything. and that the earth is not millions of years old... Well you can take that up with geologists (not biologists) then. Unfortunately for your argument, all the evidence says that it is. which I would like to talk about, how old is the earth really?Start up a geology thread and we'll take it from there. Also, if you'd like to see what actual scientists think, check out these forums: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tf&f=7 http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tf&f=3 If you decide to post, keep in mind that EvC is much more academically rigorous than LF. A post like this would have probably earned you a warning. Your conduct in the thread thus far would have almost assuredly gotten you banned. Yes, the moon becomes further from the earth at a rate of a couple of inches a year, if that's true, then the earth can't be millions of years old, because if it was the moona nd earth would be touching...so that's what happened to the dinosaurs, they got mooned to death It's more like one inch per year, and yes the moon was much closer to the earth when it was formed, but keep in mind that it was formed a few hundred million years after the earth, so there's no reason to believe that the two would have had to have been touching. Many of these arguments can be refuted before they are made by simply slowing down, doing a little research, and actually thinking about things before copy/pasting from creationist websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 I'm not sure how you'll take this but here's a forum talking about it... and I was wrong, the moon is leaving at about an centimeter a year not an inch... if the moon is moving away that means it was a lot closer, any link I found talking about it said or asked if the moon was moving at a constant speed, so the earth can't be really old there's also the comets, scientists said that all of the stuff in a comet would all break apart in about 10,000 years, if that's true, why do we still have comets? could it be that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Rarely do I post outside of SWK, but your posts were so wonderful I felt compelled to join the fun. Wow, its clear from the wonderful presentation here that this is a matter that you are extremely well read in and are qualified to comment in. Quick question from one theist to another theist - if the earth is only 10,000 years old - why is the light from the nearest star other than the sun take longer than that to get here? If God conveniently made it so the universe was 'ready made' is this not unfair on intelligent and inquisitive minds? Especially if said God, gave humans intelligence and then damns them for using said intelligence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 now, say I said that I saw a girl kiss a frog and smoke appeared, and a prince walked out of the smoke (you'd say that it's a fairy tale right?) but, if the frog slowly evolved to a man, now that's "science" Now, say I said I read a book where an invisible cosmic jewish zombie created the whole of infinity within 7 days (you'd say that it's a fairy tale right?) but, if the whole of creation managed to form and create without the aid of an invisible cosmic jewish zombie in a story I read in 2000 year old book, now that's science. Many of these arguments can be refuted before they are made by simply slowing down, doing a little research, and actually thinking about things before copy/pasting from creationist websites. Quotes for complete truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted August 11, 2008 Author Share Posted August 11, 2008 Now, say I said I read a book where an invisible cosmic jewish zombie created the whole of infinity within 7 days (you'd say that it's a fairy tale right?) but, if the whole of creation managed to form and create without the aid of an invisible cosmic jewish zombie in a story I read in 2000 year old book, now that's science. It's better to believe that we were made for a purpose than that we randomly evolved...second Jesus is not a zombie, even Josephus (an Egyptian historian) said that Jesus did rise from the dead, and he wasn't a christian...and I never said it was science, did I... Lastly, I never copied and pasted, I just listened to some creationists, thought about it, and made my own conclusions, and I made sure they were in line with the Bible... To jonathan7, the star's light might have been sped up, light is attracted by blackholes, the light might have been sped up by the attraction to a blackhole and it stayed at that speed all the way to earth, and maybe it was sped up again...scientists have been able to increase the speed of light in a lab, why can't it really happen out in space... here's a link about swedish scientists increasing speed of light http://www.livescience.com/technology/050819_fastlight.html here's another link about people in New Jersey doing the same thing... http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html here's one about german scientists http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml it's happening all over the world, maybe that's what happened to the light from stars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 It's better to believe that we were made for a purpose than that we randomly evolved... Suppose for a second that it wasn't true though. What do we do really gain from lying to ourselves? second Jesus is not a zombie, even Josephus (an Egyptian historian) said that Jesus did rise from the dead, and he wasn't a christian...and I never said it was science, did I...Josephus' writings are not even marginally meaningful. He wasn't a contemporary. His writings simply tell us that christianty was around when he was. This is akin to using a newspaper article on the growing popularity of Harry Potter to argue that Harry Potter was an actual living, breathing boy wizard. Lastly, I never copied and pasted, I just listened to some creationists, thought about it, and made my own conclusions, and I made sure they were in line with the Bible...That's the problem with beginning with a conclusion and working your way backwards. If you start with "2" and know that "your" answer has to be "5", then there are only so many numbers you can cram into the remaining space. To jonathan7, the star's light might have been sped up, light is attracted by blackholes, the light might have been sped up by the attraction to a blackhole and it stayed at that speed all the way to earth, and maybe it was sped up again...scientists have been able to increase the speed of light in a lab, why can't it really happen out in space...Is this rhetorical or are you genuinely interested in finding out why black holes don't work this way? here's a link about swedish scientists increasing speed of light http://www.livescience.com/technology/050819_fastlight.html Quantum tunneling it's happening all over the world, maybe that's what happened to the light from stars...IIRC you don't have access to YouTube correct? I could point you two a couple of videos that can explain why it's not (or at least why we have no good reason to think that it is), however in the mean time, I guess I'll just ask you why we should believe that this is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted August 11, 2008 Author Share Posted August 11, 2008 Is this rhetorical or are you genuinely interested in finding out why black holes don't work this way? Quantum tunneling IIRC you don't have access to YouTube correct? I could point you two a couple of videos that can explain why it's not (or at least why we have no good reason to think that it is), however in the mean time, I guess I'll just ask you why we should believe that this is the case. I'm genuinely interested in blackholes, and I now have access to YouTube and I correct myself, Josephus was a jew but did not believe in the christian faith... here's an article about Josephus and Jesus... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 I'm genuinely interested in blackholes, and I now have access to YouTube Great! I'd recommend starting with every video that has "creationist" in the title (Link). and I correct myself, Josephus was a jew but did not believe in the christian faith... here's an article about Josephus and Jesus... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus And? Nothing here addresses my point. (Hint: from your own source, "The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted August 11, 2008 Author Share Posted August 11, 2008 I was showing that Josephus didn't believe in christ but wrote down Jesus' life and resurrection as history... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 I was showing that Josephus didn't believe in christ but wrote down Jesus' life and resurrection as history... I suspect at this point that you haven't bothered to read what Josephus allegedly wrote, considering that you didn't read your source either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted August 11, 2008 Author Share Posted August 11, 2008 I skimmed through it mostly, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 M@RS, I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt way back in post #128. You took some time off and now you're back...and doing the exact same thing that you were doing before. You ignore my arguments, you fail to defend yours, you don't even bother to read what you post which tells me that you definitely aren't reading what I post. You continue to drag the thread off-topic (this is an evolution thread, remember?). If you aren't going to take this seriously, then please just leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 M@RS - I am point of fact a Christian - now I have only met one Christian member of the intelligentsia who thought the earth was 6,000 years old - and his explanation was possible. However I have never seen any other YEC use his theory to explain things... Ooh, Achilles - we haven't been here for a while but its Sherlock Holmes quote time... "I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s detective Sherlock Holmes. This means that if you have decided that the moon is made of cheese (or the earth is 6,000 years old) that no amount of evidence to the contrary will show you that your conclusion is wrong. If you have decided something on non-logical grounds, logic can have no impact on your reasoning - so really we are all wasting our time trying to show you, that you are incorrect. Many of these arguments can be refuted before they are made by simply slowing down, doing a little research, and actually thinking about things before copy/pasting from creationist websites. QFT It's better to believe that we were made for a purpose than that we randomly evolved...second Jesus is not a zombie, even Josephus (an Egyptian historian) said that Jesus did rise from the dead, and he wasn't a christian...and I never said it was science, did I... Why does evolution have to be random in the way you think? If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, why do you think he couldn't use evolution? a) Since when was Josephus Egyptian? b) When did Josephus ever say Jesus rose from the dead? Lastly, I never copied and pasted, I just listened to some creationists, thought about it, and made my own conclusions, and I made sure they were in line with the Bible... Really, and why is the earth being 6 billion years old out of line with the Bible? Please could you refer me to the part of the Bible that explicitly states the earth is 6,000 years old, instead of counting down genealogies to get an apparent earth ages. To jonathan7, the star's light might have been sped up, light is attracted by blackholes, the light might have been sped up by the attraction to a blackhole and it stayed at that speed all the way to earth, and maybe it was sped up again...scientists have been able to increase the speed of light in a lab, why can't it really happen out in space... here's a link about swedish scientists increasing speed of light http://www.livescience.com/technology/050819_fastlight.html here's another link about people in New Jersey doing the same thing... http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html here's one about german scientists http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml it's happening all over the world, maybe that's what happened to the light from stars... I love how you didn't answer my question. Let me pose it again... a) Why do all the most brilliant minds today thing the earth is alot older than 6,000 years old? b) So the said brilliant minds think the earth is very old; If God gives someone a brilliant mind, and they note from the evidence that the world is a lot older than 6,000 years old - and so rule out God - is it fair of God to damn them, for using an ability he gave them? Final note - may I inquire why are you arguing the age of the earth with people who don't trust in Jesus? Do you not think it may be more useful to show love, and talk about him than argue abot entirely trivial matters? And taking the subject wildly off-topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 I skimmed through it mostly, why? Because you're making arguments and then providing sources that prove you wrong. Which is just counter-intuitive. The point is to give sources that defend what you're saying. While you're at it, I've found you a new homepage - http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 That evolution is a joke, and that the earth is not millions of years old... How old is the earth in your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigundr Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 According to most geological evidence, the earth is more like 4.6 billion years old. And please, M@rs, explain dinosaurs and fossil evidence that supports the fact that the earth is not 6,000 years old. I'm a Christian and I know it's not that little. Pre-Cambrian eon anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeleeMaster Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Why does evolution have to be random in the way you think? If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, why do you think he couldn't use evolution? I agree, I don't really agree with the theory of evolution (btw I'm a born-again christian) but isn't microevolution somewhat proven to be true? Obviously god gave us the ability to adapt which is great, but what I don't really agree with is macroevolution, which is mainly what the theory of evolution is supposed to be about, where one creature can easily evolve into another like monkeys to humans. According to evolution, mammals started back in dinosaurs times from the common ancestor of this mouse-like thing eventually evolving into all the different mamals today (tigers, lions, humans, whales etc.), or at least that's what the National History museum in Washington D.C. said. Anyway, there's this book I've been reading lately called Reasons Skeptics should consider Christianity by John McDowell that answers lots of questions about the bible and evolution, and theres his other book called Reasons to Believe that answers about 65 questions (not sure on the exact number) on other things about Christianity. They're pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 Micro-Evolution is true, all of the others, scientists are scrambling to prove true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Micro-Evolution is true, all of the others, scientists are scrambling to prove true And yet you still didn't answer any of our questions. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Micro-Evolution is true, all of the others, scientists are scrambling to prove true I'm pretty sure it's actually the religious crowd that is scrambling to prove them false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 If I'd know micro evolution to be true, I'd wonder why it would be that the same principle couldn't apply to a bigger scheme, namely macro evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 And yet you still didn't answer any of our questions. _EW_ I guess answers are just a luxury to him EW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 I agree, I don't really agree with the theory of evolution (btw I'm a born-again christian) but isn't microevolution somewhat proven to be true? Within the context of how science actually works, the appropriate response to this question is: The Theory of Evolution is generally accepted. The scientific method doesn't really deal with "proof" (that's math). Obviously god gave us the ability to adapt which is great, but what I don't really agree with is macroevolution, which is mainly what the theory of evolution is supposed to be about, where one creature can easily evolve into another like monkeys to humans. The Theory of Evolution makes no distiction between "micro" and "macro" so I'm not sure where you're getting the basis of your argument. The Theory of Evolution deals with decent with modification which has been observed innumerable times (if you need evidence, check the mirror to note that you are not an exact replica of either of your parents. Neither is any living thing on Earth). In other words, the ToE doesn't deal with what you seem to think it does According to evolution, mammals started back in dinosaurs times from the common ancestor of this mouse-like thing eventually evolving into all the different mamals today (tigers, lions, humans, whales etc.), or at least that's what the National History museum in Washington D.C. said.Yep, that sounds about right Anyway, there's this book I've been reading lately called Reasons Skeptics should consider Christianity by John McDowell that answers lots of questions about the bible and evolution, and theres his other book called Reasons to Believe that answers about 65 questions (not sure on the exact number) on other things about Christianity. They're pretty good.Thanks for the recommendations. Micro-Evolution is true, all of the others, scientists are scrambling to prove true Do you have a source for this or is this something else you've simply decided to make up? There is no Theory of Micro-Evolution or Theory of Macro-Evolution. These are distinctions invented by creationists who have realized that they cannot argue evolution in the lab. That they choose to ignore the fossil record doesn't make their position credible or true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 M@RS: You're re-entering infraction territory for posting distracting comments rather participating in a debate. Warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeleeMaster Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 The Theory of Evolution makes no distiction between "micro" and "macro" so I'm not sure where you're getting the basis of your argument. The Theory of Evolution deals with decent with modification which has been observed innumerable times (if you need evidence, check the mirror to note that you are not an exact replica of either of your parents. Neither is any living thing on Earth). In other words, the ToE doesn't deal with what you seem to think it does Of course that's what the theory evolution is about, don't most people know about it? And adding to the mirror statement, and what I said about humans and animals being able to adapt earlier, it's very obvious and has been observed, for example in polar bears, in humans, and in probably numerous other animals. There are different races of humans, and you could consider a polar bear another race of bear, because it IS a bear, but it has white fur and has adapted to cold temperatures, it's not evolving into a flying octopus. Just like the African race of humans has dark skin and is adapted to hot temperatures. But we are still completely human, were aren't something else. If skulls of the modern man were found waaaaay back in the day, why haven't we been evolving into different creatures instead of just adapting and making little changes in that since then? Why are some animals supposed to have evolved into different creatures while others are supposed to have stayed the same? Do some animals have stable DNA, while others do not? But if we are all from a common ancestor, wouldn't our DNA have practically the same stability, or do certain animals' DNAs just stabilize and others remain or become unstable allowing them to just evolve? Do you have a source for this or is this something else you've simply decided to make up? There is no Theory of Micro-Evolution or Theory of Macro-Evolution. These are distinctions invented by creationists who have realized that they cannot argue evolution in the lab. That they choose to ignore the fossil record doesn't make their position credible or true. No, there isn't any theory of micro or macro-evolution, they're simply terms, whether they were made up by us creationists or not (check reference.com for encyclopedia entries on the words). And yes your right, we can't really argue evolution in the lab, or work, or school, or at least not all the time (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/), but scientists sure can, don't they often change the "lineage" of animals every 5 or 10 years, and haven't they constantly argued and been divided about animals and their lineages in the past constantly coming up with their own lineages? Also, how does the fossil record make our position incredible and untrue? Does it really have any transitional/intermediate forms, any creatures with half-formed feet, or half-formed wings? Can't the neanderthal man and the rickets in his jaw bone be explained by disease and calcium deficiencies? Weren't many modern-looking skulls found that were believed to be older than the neanderthal? Weren't human jaws found in deposits in Kenya in 1932 older than the jaws with rickets found in Neander? Wasn't it proven that Neanderthals walked erect? According to my book here, it says that in 1947 Neanderthal was discovered to have lived in a cave that had been previously inhabited by a modern human before him. So doesn't that mean that either the Neanderthal was a seperate creature by itself, or more likely a modern man with calcium deficiency or some disease? How come in the fossil record new groups of plants and animals appear suddenly and abruptly, and how come they seem to stay pretty much the same until they disappear altogether if/when they do? How is the cambrian explosion explained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.