The History of the Universe

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

No but neither can you prove it.

 

Radioactive dating, experiments with live specimens, observed DNA changes, the fossil record, and one unifying theory is what can be proven for evolution. It can be proven.

 

Here's the thing Cjais - in either argument, most of the evidence is negative for the other side. There's simply too much we don't - and can't know.

 

Here's what we know:

 

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

Mankind has only recently existed.

 

The fossils show a gradual transition between the different species of life that ever existed. And this happened over great period of time, with some species becoming extinct, and others evolving to fit niches in nature.

 

As far as fish eyes go - there is no reason to believe that the light-sensitive cells would start to evolve in the first place. For one thing, functioning light-sensitive cells only exist in groups; single cells are useless in that case.

 

Why would they be useless in a single celled form? Why would it be a supposedly "improbable" mutation?

 

As far as Archeopteryx goes - why is it that you first say that finding transitional species is extremely improbable, then say that we've found six Archeopteryxes.

 

I never said finding transitional fossils would be improbable. I said that with your reasoning, every transitional fossil we dig up you'll immediately classify as an independent species with no relation to other species. Even though DNA tests have proved that they're very much related.

 

At which point the trait would be selected against, and birds would never exist.

 

Take a close look at this monstrosity recently dug up.

 

Does that look like remniscient of a flying squirrel to you?

 

Your understanding of natural selection is limited. You forget to include in that equation that we have several million years to mutate our forward to this. Each little millimeter of skin would be carefully passed on to the next generation and natural selection would make sure that it happens simultaneusly on each of these creatures. Now, we have several thousand of these dino squirrels slowly evolving their way forward to better gliding ability - at the same time. It isn't improbable at all once you factor in a few million years.

 

But yes, you touched on a subject that hasn't been completely satisfactory answered with evolutionary evidence yet. But the other facts remain: 4.5 billion years old earth, DNA changes in offspring that culminate in other species and real observances of the theory in action by insects and bacteria.

 

Present empirical evidence of the biblical genesis. Now. None of you have done it yet.

 

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

 

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory? (I'd like to see you present evidence of this. I'd very much like it, actually)

 

3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory?

 

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

 

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

 

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

 

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

 

Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

 

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

 

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

[TheWhiteRaider]

You want to know what exactly is making them immune to anti-biotics?

 

Yes I want exact anwsers not just "it is a mutation".

 

 

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

Realy? I got to hear how you know.

 

It isn't improbable at all once you factor in a few million years.

 

No it still is. Random chance does not remember previous results! It is like saying that because a coin turned up heads it is going to be tails next. It is not true. It is still 1/2 chance every time you filp

 

The fossils show a gradual transition between the different species of life that ever existed

 

Not quite. Let's just say for a second that the flood did happen. Now if it is true. Would not the slower one not be able to make it to higher ground? Would not humans be able to get to high places before they died? Would not the ones that could not climb be near the bottum? Also did you know trees have been found verticaly in the ground?

 

But combine all the radioactive dating methods

 

When ever all the radio active methods are used at the same place you get an error of 1.5 - 15 bliion years.

 

 

I think evolutionist tend to prove the wrong things.

 

If Jimmy eats poison Jimmy will die. True

Jimmy died so that means Jimmy ate poison. False

 

That tends to be the logic behind alot of what you said. You tend to go proving more that it could rather than it did.

 

BTW, What observed DNA changes may I ask?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

Yes I want exact anwsers not just "it is a mutation".

 

But it is a mutation that is the cause of the genetic change.

 

Out of a bunch of bacteria, a very select few will have a genetic change from the rest that enables them to code for a different protein than the others. This protein makes them immune. Then, after all the others have been wiped out, the ones with the genetic change will replicate and ensure the survival of the gene.

 

It's been tested on humans as well - due to a genetic change, we're now immune to the plague.

 

 

Realy? I got to hear how you know.

 

Half-lives of radioactive isotopes. I don't expect you to understand it though, and you'll probably whine about the inaccuracy once more.

 

Reply after you've read this.

 

No it still is. Random chance does not remember previous results! It is like saying that because a coin turned up heads it is going to be tails next. It is not true. It is still 1/2 chance every time you filp

 

Reply after you've read this. Note that it's not sequential, but simultaneus.

 

And read this to understand that evolution does not depend on chance.

 

Not quite. Let's just say for a second that the flood did happen.

 

I don't really care aobut the flood anymore. Massive evidence is against it.

 

Here.

 

And here.

 

Would not humans be able to get to high places before they died?

 

With the rate of the downpour, every human would be vaporized or liquified in a matter of hours.

 

When ever all the radio active methods are used at the same place you get an error of 1.5 - 15 bliion years.

 

Source, please.

 

An interesting example is the formation of ice on Greenland. Every year, a new layer is added. If you go backwards, you can count several thousands of years (about 40.000), and you can correlate the changes in the ice with natural phenomena.

 

BTW, What observed DNA changes may I ask?

 

When mutations occur, the DNA is changed. So far so good.

 

These DNA changes are recorded in nucleic chain. It has been proven on live specimens altering and mutating to fit the changed environment. Thus, you can prove how much time has passed since the mother species evolved into the examined one. This theory has been tested on dogs as well as several other living animals with living, provable species.

[C'jais]

And just for good measure:

 

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

 

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory? (I'd like to see you present evidence of this. I'd very much like it, actually)

 

3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory?

 

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

 

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

 

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

 

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

 

Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

 

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

 

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

 

Take a close look at this yet again.

 

Remember what I wrote about a "flying squirrel dinosaur"? I, not even an expert by far, predicted this fossil discovery! Remarkable. It really is. And not mere luck - the theory of evolution was a clear indication that such a fossil would be found.

 

Now, let's see you creationist predict ANYTHING at all with your theory. Fossils, natural phenomena, geological excavations - I don't care. Just predict something, and you can stop looking stupid in the light of evolution.

[Reborn Outcast]

Cjais did you edit your post? Because I noticed before that you had a link to a hydrogen page I believe and now its gone. I would like to see that link again if you took it out. (I am in the process of getting info so I will post later I just want to see the link.)

 

 

Edit: Ah nevermind I found it. (It was in the isotopes section and it was helium)

[Reborn Outcast]

Ok sorry for the double post but here we go...

 

Taken from this site.

 

Here are nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less that the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000-10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time-scale and for the biblical time-scale.

Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday facts.

 

 

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.(1)

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and © other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.(2) So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

 

Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

 

 

2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.(3) This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 metres.(4)

The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year.(4) As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

 

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometres deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.

 

 

3. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers(5) and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.(6,7) As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.(7) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.(7) Calculations(8) for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

 

4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years.(9) Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.(10) This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.(11) The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.(12)

 

5. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.(13)

 

6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.

Strong geologic evidence(14) exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone -- formed an alleged 500 million years ago -- of the Ute Pass Fault, west of Colorado Springs, was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.

 

7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.(15) 'Squashed' Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time-scale.(16) 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.(17,18)

 

8. Helium in the wrong places.

All naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in five billion years.(19) This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.(20)

 

 

9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.(21) By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies.(22) If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

 

10. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.(21) Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the four billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.(22)

 

11. History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.(23) Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time-scale is much more likely.(22)

 

 

Here is an answer to your dating methods...

 

A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad. Young basalt rock at the Canyon's top produced an age estimate 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon's bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron). If such a sophisticated method is so flawed, geologist Dr. Steven Austin rightly wonders, "Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?"

 

 

 

And some more... The Assumptions are the evolutionists theories.

 

 

ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.

PROBLEM: One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.

 

 

ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists have also tended to assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.

PROBLEM: The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem.7 Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.

 

 

ASSUMPTION: They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.8

PROBLEM: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change.9 If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks.

 

 

Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:

 

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."10

 

Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation:

 

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

 

The problem that is referred to by the creationist here is that the short- period comets have not occupied their present orbits for very long (in astronomical terms). Each time a comet passes close to the sun, some of its matter is driven off into space by the sun's energy (forming its "tail"). "Short-period" comets are believed by astronomers to have a lifetime of only a few thousand years, because after that all of their "tail-producing" matter would be used up (indeed, astronomers have noted comets to "vanish"; the remaining material only makes its presence known upon entering the Earth's atmosphere; this is likely the origin of meteoroid swarms.)

 

However, the fact that a comet cannot have occupied its present orbit for very long does not automatically imply that it is young. The Oort hypothesis does explain this problem as well, in that long-period comets -- if frequent enough -- will be moved into short-period orbits by a relatively near approach to a planet (comet loses momentum, planet gains it, comet is now in a vastly shorter orbit, planet is now in a very slightly longer orbit).

 

In fact, of the short-period comets, roughly half orbit pretty much between the sun and jupiter, leading astronomers to believe that jupiter "captured" them into their current orbits. (Statistically, we would expect the largest planet -- the best "capturer" -- to have captured the most short-period comets).

 

 

2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

According to secular scientific literature,

 

Which? Most likely another out-of-context quote or a "scientific litterature" of dubious origin.

 

And plate tectonics do take care of that problem. Otherwise we'd be up our hips in mud in a few thousand years.

 

3. Not enough sodium in the sea.

 

This is just unfounded hogwash. As far as anyone knows, these things move in cycles.

 

4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

 

The decay is not a steady state. In fact, there is considerable evidence for reversals. The atlantic ocean floor as it spreads shown the weakening - reversing - strengthening recorded in its stone as the continents spread from the mid-atlantic ridge.

 

The field is expected to reverse sometime in the next few thousand years. A time scale on page 78 shows the reversals over the past 170 million years, as deduced from the magnetic patterns in oceanic crust. I counted about 200 reversals on the chart.

 

5. Many strata are too tightly bent.

 

I'd like to see this applied to a real observation, rather than mere speculation of "many mountaineus regions".

 

 

6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.

It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground.

 

Documentation?

 

Regardless, that is one weird result among many correct ones. The way things work is that you have to present proof of the dating method being consistently wrong, and on occassions where most modern scientists had proved themselves correct. It just doesn't help to whip out an example of grotesque results, which most scientists likely already know can't be used for anything.

 

7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.

 

Read this. I can't bother with cut n pasting a huge piece of text.

 

8. Helium in the wrong places.

 

This statement is false. It falls precisely within predicted limits.

 

 

9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

 

Why does this imply this? Because skeletons get pulverized? Because we haven't dug up enough "artifacts" yet? And where do they get this notion that 4 billion should have lived and have become buried, all readily available for excavation?

 

The false reasoning abounds, it seems.

 

10. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.

 

And with good reason. Due to the climate, animal life and the recent ice age, the stone age people would have to be nomadic hunters.

 

And this is a completely unproven hypothesis. By the same standards, I could say that because the medieval people were just as intelligent as us, we should have built nukes in the late 16th century. You can't a theory on what we "should have been able to do". That must be tested.

 

It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.

 

The mere mention of the Flood gives me fits. What did the meat eaters eat after landfall? Were viruses taken aboard the ark? And how many numbers of self-replicating species would be taken aboard?

 

11. History is too short.

Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.

 

Which megalithic monuments is he referring to? What "beautiful" cave paintings is he referring to? It's not very difficult to record the lunar phases. Establishing formal grammatic for writing would take a lot of time, the uselessness of history recording would make it highly unlikely.

 

Here is an answer to your dating methods...

 

Nope.

 

Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.

As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).

Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay

While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.

The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.

It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.

Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.

 

All your "assumptions" are answered in the above if you care to read it.

 

Congratulations on making your first Redwing (In honour of Redwing's obscenely long posts which were a pain in the behind to reply to).

 

Now, since I've taken time to answer all your cut and paste work to the best of my ability, I now present to you questions I'd like to see answered as well:

 

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

 

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory? (I'd like to see you present evidence of this. I'd very much like it, actually)

 

3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory?

 

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

 

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

 

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

 

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

 

Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

 

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

 

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

 

Take a close look at this yet again.

 

Remember what I wrote about a "flying squirrel dinosaur"? I, not even an expert by far, predicted this fossil discovery! Remarkable. It really is. And not mere luck - the theory of evolution was a clear indication that such a fossil would be found.

 

Now, let's see you creationist predict ANYTHING at all with your theory. Fossils, natural phenomena, geological excavations - I don't care. Just predict something, and you can stop looking stupid in the light of evolution.

[BCanr2d2]

There are many things that people could postulate in regards to evolution. I can see also how a Creationist could explain how so much of the animal life, including humans have such a shared amount of DNA, close to 80 or 90%. Does that not insinuate that EVERY being came from a common ancestor?

 

I can see how a creationist could say that this commonality is the "god" factor in it all, but does nothing to explain everything...

 

As for the intelligence factor, I have mentioned elsewhere, not in this debate I believe, that our current "knowledge" isn't the entire sum of all knowledge on this earth that ever existed. History is written by the victors, and why would the victors want to perpetuate ideas from a civilisation that they destroyed for being different!

The Anicent Greeks would probably have the world at least 400-500 years ahead of where it is now, if not for the invasion and subsequent defeat in Athens.....

The Ancient Egyptians knew of how to successfully build pyramids, which in our understanding is a complex thing to do. Their knowledge in engineering and maths must have been immense to design them, like that of the Greeks.

 

Only now, as we start to discover some of the ancient texts thought lost are we realising how we could've been almost 1800 years further advanced. It is weird to see that only in the last 100-200 years that we have begun to actually catch up to the level of development that existed 2000 yrs ago. We maythink that we are at the smartest ebb of human intelligence, far from it.....

[RpTheHotrod]

This is why I say the debate is pointless. This side says they are right, the other says they are right. Everyone won't know until the end.

 

Now, Cjais ,who was insulting what I said, by using a sarcastic answer. You just stare at your garden...the scientist team went down to the level of Quarks...can you study how quarks MULTIPLY? No...you see a withering plant and you're happy. That'd never amount to anything scientificly.

 

My point also about evolution was NOT to say Creation was a FACT (Which I believe it is), my point was to correct the person who said evolution was a fact. It isn't, it's the THEORY of evolution.

 

You read into things too much and start blurting out saying how the other person is WRONG about something they never even said. I take your reply as an insult, and putting words into my mouth I never said.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

This is why I say the debate is pointless. This side says they are right, the other says they are right. Everyone won't know until the end.

 

Yes. Everything is pointless. There's no point in arguing about anything, because no one in these forums have ever changed their minds about anything.

 

Now, Cjais ,who was insulting what I said, by using a sarcastic answer.

 

Please. Please. I was not being sarcastic. I was trying to make a point - that observing plants wither only once and then forget to stay and see the whole story. Every Creationist dating construct is only true as long as you don't tell everything behind it.

 

For example, the moon dust argument. It's stated that 15 million tons of dust enter the earth. That's pretty irrelevant since erosion takes care of this. But on the moon, there is no erosion. Surely it would result in there being quite a deep layer of dust. Problem solved: the moon is young.

 

No. They forget to tell that the figure of "15 million ton" is outrageously false. It was "observed" by a creationist who since admitted it was an "overstatement". Modern tests have since shown it is only about 30.000 ton instead. And on the moon, only about half a feet is dust. Below that, the dust is packed into "regolith" - packed powdery material. And they somehow also forget to mention that the dust on the moon is disolved by radiation and meteorite impacs (small ones, of course). Another thing to note: There had been several lunar landers before the Apollo mission: Soviet and American vehicles has been there before, so they were quite aware that the dust wasn't that deep. Case finally closed.

 

you see a withering plant and you're happy. That'd never amount to anything scientificly.

 

And neither would testing quarks once, without documentation.

 

Here's how it goes: We have several radioactive isotope daith methods. Using in conjuction, they all point to the same age of everything tested upon (with a few million years apart when dating very old objects - which is to be expected and is pretty irrelevant when we're into the billions anyway).

 

Now, they've been tested several times, and they always give the same result when applied to another isotope dating method, and when used several times on the same material. And no, giving examples of where it has gone haywire is not going to help - scientists know which materials it's unsafe to date with this (such as lava rock, since it's been down in the earth for a looong time). And one bad example only proves they did something wrong - not the method itself was wrong.

 

These dating methods are in fact so accurate and thoroughly tested that it's possible to predict the age of geological strata or fossils. That means, before actually testing the item with the dating methods, it's quite possible to predict the result based on which layer it lay in, and where it was found. This would not in any way be possible if the dating methods went completely haywire each time we tested this stuff. Due to this prediction, we can safely label the isotope dating methods as being very consistent, very safe, and very accurate.

 

Show me a discovery where creationists have predicted the dating result simirarily to scientists, and I'll start taking your theory a wee bit more seriously.

 

My point also about evolution was NOT to say Creation was a FACT (Which I believe it is)

 

Here we go again. You don't believe facts. Do you believe in the Periodic table of the elements? Or do you realize it's fact?

 

You believe in something that's unproven, something that's not verified, something that's not fact. If it was fact, there'd be no need to believe in it.

 

Show us creationism is not worthy of believing in, by showing us the cold, hard facts. Prove us wrong. Don't point to the Bible and scream "God did it!". Don't point to weird dating constructs that can only prove the earth is young if you leave out half the story and that can't even date objects. Don't point to currently unsolved problems in science (what sparked the Big Bang, HUH?) and inanely try to prove your theory with this. Don't point to a certain beetle species and yell "Well, how do you explain this?" and then retreat again. Don't point to God and absurdly claim he could have done everything described by your theory, simply because he can bend the laws of nature - it doesn't work that way, you have to present positive proof that your theory is correct.

 

If you can't, you'll look no better than me saying you all were created 10 minutes ago. I saw God create you 10 minutes ago. You'll all say I'm ravingly mad, but all I'd have to say, if God is all-powerful, why could he not have created you 10 minutes ago, with the false appearance of looking older than you really are? He could have created you with inserted memory of things that never took place. If you accept the existence of an all-powerful God, you could never prove this wrong. And this is what you're doing. We simply can't accept this, because it's logically tremendously false.

 

my point was to correct the person who said evolution was a fact. It isn't, it's the THEORY of evolution.

 

The theory of evolution is fact. You mistake a "theory" as something that isn't fact, something that hasn't been proven.

 

The scientific definition of theory is something that can be proven, can incorporate laws and tested hypotheses. A "law" is a descriptive generalization about nature.

 

When scientists talk about the theory of evolution (or the theory of relativity, or the atomic theory for that matter), they are not saying it's not fact. These theories rely on indirect evidence, but the evidence itself is clear enough. We can't see atoms either, but we know they're there, and we can obviously see their effect.

 

What we know, have tested and what's fact: The earth is 4.55 billion years old. Man was not the first species to come into being, in fact they're one of the last. Life started out very simple, and very small, in the water. It then began to gradually evolve into different species.

 

Now, come up with evidence that suggests we all existed at the same time. That there was space enough on the planet for every species that ever lived to co-exist. That there was food enough for them. That they somehow could fit into an ark. That all life didn't die from pressure and downpour. That the predators aboard the ark could somehow survive on eating nothing for several years after landfall when the prey species were still 2 specimens strong. That the different human skin colors could somehow evolve from just 2000 years. And then there are always the huge genetic problems with the ark. These questions should keep you busy for a while, but I'm eager to give you more once you've answered them.

 

You read into things too much and start blurting out saying how the other person is WRONG about something they never even said. I take your reply as an insult, and putting words into my mouth I never said.

 

And I take your reply as an insult, because I obviously did not "put words in your mouth".

 

I'm starting to feel there are certain people in here who wants to be offended. I'm not kidding. They act as if their world views are not to be reasoned with, and any attempt of shooting at its lack of logic is met with severe discontent, as if their own mother had been called names.

 

Listen, have I ever expressed offense at the prospect of actually defending the theory of evolution and science itself? Not in the slightest. While I sometimes found some of you a bit unreasonable, I've always treated you with respect. I've always answered all of your questions. I've always held the notion that a world view is only as good as long as its fact. When it has been disproven, it's time to change your views on things - not stand insulted. If you can successfully prove to me that your theory of Creation is true, I'll cease fire. I'm perfectly willing to accept new facts and reconstruct my view of the world if given sufficient evidence.

 

[/Redwing]

 

Sorry for the long post.

[RpTheHotrod]

Don't forget about "dating techniques".

 

Not too long ago, they decided to "date" a hammer that was in our "generation".

 

After several tests, the hammer was dated to be several millions of years old.

[RpTheHotrod]

and btw, I never said my theory was true (which I do believe). I was just stating something I saw in the news, and you start attacking me.

 

Me: Hey look, some girl got murdered in new york today

You: GIVE ME A SOURCE, I can look outside and see some kids playing, doesn't mean they are gonna kill eachother!

 

 

Seriously...I just saw it on the news awhile back and was talking about it. I wasn't using it to DEBATE ANYTHING.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

Don't forget about "dating techniques".

 

That's what I just spent several paragraphs on.

 

Not too long ago, they decided to "date" a hammer that was in our "generation".

 

After several tests, the hammer was dated to be several millions of years old.

 

A weird test result. News at freakin' ten.

 

Now, this does not in any way disprove isotope dating by a long shot, since we can predict results, arrive at the same age with several different methods (among them Greenlandic Ice samples that has nothing to do with radioactive isotopes).

 

And I still want some documentation on this. Such big news must surely have made it to peer-reviewed scientific magazines.

[RpTheHotrod]

You are wanting this, you are wanting that. Go research and look it up. I have work + college where I'm gone from morning until 10 at night. I don't have time on my hands.

 

edit- Was talking to someone that has some experience in that field. They said that alot of the dissproven evolution tests are not opened out to the common public. If you go down to those "dinosaur footprints", the tours always stay clear of the area where human and dinosuar footprints are at the same place, at the same level.

 

of coarse, some of the dissproven evolution "proof" do eist in some books. Like "Lucy", or alot of the other bones found (a tooth was found, and they buitl this entire skeleton of what the human looked like and put it into the history books for years, butit was evetually found that it was the tooth of a pig...yet our history books in our schools still say it is absolute proof of evolution). Another was a half man/ape skull....later discovered that they were 2 different skulls put together, and there was actually a gun-like material keeping 1 of the teeth in their socket....plus the skull was treated with a chemical to make it seem very very very sold.

 

I can't give you absolute proof that God exists, it's all on faith. I can give you several evidence that there is using the Bible. Several things in the Bible have been always considered simply not true, only later to dicover that the Bible was telling the truth (lost cities that "never existed" that have been discovered, the world is round and held on nothing, geographic locations and historic records, and some other things)

 

 

Evolution is not science. It's all guesswork. True science will never be at the level of the Bible...but the Bible always proves true science. Before we discovered alot of things, it was already in the Bible...but ignored.

 

Remember how several people died awhile back (I think Washingston too)? They thought blood was bad, and would "remove" blood to get rid of the infection...there's life in the blood. Remember how people used to think the world is flat? Remember how people thought the world was carried by Atlas? It's all in the Bible showing it's simply not true. I know that's all basic, but I don't want to go to far in depth.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

You are wanting this, you are wanting that. Go research and look it up. I have work + college where I'm gone from morning until 10 at night. I don't have time on my hands.

 

All I want is evidence for Creation.

 

The burden of proof is on you, since evolution is already established as a proven theory and taken for granted, with much evidence behind it.

 

Except to certain religious people, of course.

[ShadowTemplar]

Reborn: When refering to such a huge text, just sum up the points and link to the "proof".

 

Every Creationist: If there was any proof of Creation, why hasn't it appeared in a peer-reviewed magazine? And before you start coming up with some lucridious conspiracy, remember that such a conspiracy would have absolutely no motive for hiding or debunking evidence of Creation.

 

Was talking to someone that has some experience in that field. They said that alot of the dissproven evolution tests are not opened out to the common public.

 

Again a conspiracy. There still is no motive.

 

If you go down to those "dinosaur footprints", the tours always stay clear of the area where human and dinosuar footprints are at the same place, at the same level.

 

No, they don't stay clear. Because there is nothing to stay clear of.

 

of coarse, some of the dissproven evolution "proof" do eist in some books. Like "Lucy", or alot of the other bones found (a tooth was found, and they buitl this entire skeleton of what the human looked like and put it into the history books for years, butit was evetually found that it was the tooth of a pig

 

Lucy isn't the only proof of evolution, so disproving Lucy doesn't disprove evolution. This contributes nothing to the topic (ie it's SPAM).

 

...yet our history books in our schools still say it is absolute proof of evolution).

 

That's shoddy schoolbooks, not a fault of evolution (in fact it's probably the fault of politicians who refuse to spend money on the scientific disiplines (perhaps because they don't like the results)).

 

Another was a half man/ape skull....later discovered that they were 2 different skulls put together, and there was actually a gun-like material keeping 1 of the teeth in their socket....plus the skull was treated with a chemical to make it seem very very very sold.

 

Where there is money, there is fraud. See the comments applied to Lucy.

 

I can't give you absolute proof that God exists, it's all on faith. I can give you several evidence that there is using the Bible.

 

Faith=Useless, dangerous foolishness, and should be treated like a mental disease.

 

And you cannot prove anything through the Bible. That inevitably ends up as circular reasoning. Because the Bible is a work of fiction!

 

Several things in the Bible have been always considered simply not true, only later to dicover that the Bible was telling the truth (lost cities that "never existed" that have been discovered, the world is round and held on nothing, geographic locations and historic records, and some other things)

 

This is a prime example of Christianity taking the credit for the accomplishments that science has produced. In spite of Christianity, I might add.

 

Also: The people who did that research (the Modernist movement (Catholic fanatics, whom the Church had made the mistake of equipping with science)) almost uniformly converted away from Christianity during it (read "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deciet"), because they found that the Bible couldn't possibly be true, based on the archeological record.

 

Evolution is not science. It's all guesswork.

 

Read the ****ing thread before you post such bull****.

 

True science will never be at the level of the Bible...but the Bible always proves true science.

 

False. Science doesn't need the Bible. It can prove itself. Unlike the Bible. And science is above and beyond the Bible in all respects: Can the Bible tell you how to build a Boing? No, it is useless for that. Can the Bible tell you how to build a power plant? No. It is useless for that. And so on.

 

Before we discovered alot of things, it was already in the Bible...but ignored.

 

Hogwash. Sources?

 

Again: Can you build a plane/power plant/refrigirator/electrical light source/computer/anything else from the BibleBigBookofBullcrap? I think not.

 

You have the very essence of true power within reach, and yet you turn away, because of some obsolote, ancient book. Yet you use the positive results of this power, like a parasite without contributing anything. Words cannot begin to describe my contempt for such hypocracy.

 

Remember how several people died awhile back (I think Washingston too)? They thought blood was bad, and would "remove" blood to get rid of the infection

 

That's a CHRISTIAN practice. Get your facts straight, or get the hell out!

 

...there's life in the blood.

 

Hogwash. There is O2, that's what's in the blood. Life in the blood? What bull****. Get your facts straight, or get the hell out!

 

Remember how people used to think the world is flat?

 

That's a CHRISTIAN practice. Get your facts straight, or get the hell out!

 

Remember how people thought the world was carried by Atlas?

 

That's another religion (read: Another piece of useless nonsense).

 

It's all in the Bible showing it's simply not true.

 

The Unholy Bible doesn't show anything to be true or not true! Period! Get your facts straight, or get the hell out.

 

I know that's all basic, but I don't want to go to far in depth.

 

I get the impression that you can't go too far into depth... So prove me wrong, I dare you. [Edited content due to ad hominem attack - C'jais]

 

And as a note on the side: Your "God" never did anything for me. I am what I am today because I worked for it. I don't owe "God" anything. Your "God" never righted any wrong that befell me (and that same "God" should know that quite a few have). I have nothing to be thankful towards "God" for!

[ShadowTemplar]

This is going nowhere fast (though I hate to admit it).

 

What we have here is a severely understaffed Evolution side who actually takes the time and care to find the facts and sources to back their arguments.

 

On the other side we have a bunch of Creationists who keep repeating the same crap that has been refuted a thousand times a thousand times, and who don't display any knowledge beyond what would be expected of a child of 12 (I don't claim that they don't possess the knowledge, I simply state that they have yet to show it, just like their unfounded hypothesis).

 

Furthermore, while we have always endeavoured to read and take into consideration the links that have been provided by the Creationis side, they have yet to show us the same decency.

 

And, even though we have provided numerous guides to the diciplines of Logic and Reasoning, I have yet to see any Creationist here who actually had a well-structured, logically water-proof, and thought-out reply, that took into account the most immediate consequences of their claim.

 

Also I am sick and tired of Creationists who first try to reason for their faith, and then, when their faith is shot as full of logical holes as a snowman standing in front of a machine gun, retreat back up the hill, saying that "that's what they believe" or something to that effect. Don't bother to try to prove something unless you accept that it can also be disproven. The two go hand in hand.

 

Lastly let me express my contempt for people who reap all the goods that science have produced and still try to debunk it. Hypocracy like that cannot be adequately commented on in this forum without breaking several of the rules that govern these forums.

 

This is ShadowTemplar, signing out.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

If you go down to those "dinosaur footprints", the tours always stay clear of the area where human and dinosuar footprints are at the same place, at the same level.

 

Right. So what's the real motive to do that? Do you seriously think that the world of science is conspiring against irrefutable proof of Creationism? Why in the heavens would they do this?

 

of coarse, some of the dissproven evolution "proof" do eist in some books. Like "Lucy"

 

Lucy is not a hoax. Neither is Toumaï. Neither are the Homo Erectus fossils. Nor the Homo Habilis. I already gave a link to the Lucy "hoax" - do I have to repeat myself?

 

or alot of the other bones found (a tooth was found, and they buitl this entire skeleton of what the human looked like and put it into the history books for years, butit was evetually found that it was the tooth of a pig...yet our history books in our schools still say it is absolute proof of evolution). Another was a half man/ape skull....later discovered that they were 2 different skulls put together, and there was actually a gun-like material keeping 1 of the teeth in their socket....plus the skull was treated with a chemical to make it seem very very very sold.

 

Hoaxes invented for money. Not to uphold this grand conspiracy. Scientists scoff at this, and the world of science is constantly rooting out these pariahs whenever encountered.

 

The same cannot be said for the world of evolution. No doubt they've all been told that the Lucy fossil was not a hoax - yet they still go on and on, and somehow "forget" they were told that some time ago. Same goes about the dating constructs - all of them have been refuted, but they still "forget" to tell other creationists that they can't use this "proof" anymore, because it's false. And most even forget to remind themselves of this again.

 

I'm willing to stake everything on stating that if you creationists (the ones I've been arguing with here) should ever encounter another evolutionist, and try to persuade him, you'll probably dig out the same "isotope dating is false", "dust on the moon is accumulating too fast", "how do you explain the chance of life appearing on earth", "polonium halos indicate this and that", "there are no transitional fossils", "no-one have ever seen a new species evolve" etc etc. I sincerely doubt you'll remind yourself that it has all been disproven. I sincerely think you'll still proceed on your merry way and "forget" what I and many others proved to you.

 

I can't give you absolute proof that God exists, it's all on faith.

 

But is faith relevant when discussing cold, hard facts? If faith relevant when evidence to the contrary shows it cannot be true?

 

Evolution is not science. It's all guesswork. True science will never be at the level of the Bible...but the Bible always proves true science. Before we discovered alot of things, it was already in the Bible...but ignored.

 

Such talk. Can you provide linkage to this?

 

Remember how several people died awhile back (I think Washingston too)? They thought blood was bad, and would "remove" blood to get rid of the infection...there's life in the blood. Remember how people used to think the world is flat? Remember how people thought the world was carried by Atlas? It's all in the Bible showing it's simply not true. I know that's all basic, but I don't want to go to far in depth.

 

Blood is life? The non-Christian world thought the world was flat? The non-religious world thought the world was carried by Atlas? Jesus can save us?

 

Which of these can you prove in any way? Which of these are relevant.

 

None.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Reborn: When refering to such a huge text, just sum up the points and link to the "proof".

 

Sorry I wasn't aware of that. I'll remember next time.

 

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Every Creationist: If there was any proof of Creation, why hasn't it appeared in a peer-reviewed magazine?

 

By "peer-reviewed" do you mean magazines like the famous science ones? The reason proof about Creationalism doesn't appear in that is because they don't want to put it in there. Thye only want evolution.

 

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

This contributes nothing to the topic (ie it's SPAM).

 

No it isn't. Spam is something that is absolutely worthless such as calling the mods and the forums stupid on you're first post or posting 1 liners in 35 different threads. This is spam, what was posted on Lucy is not... it just something you don't want to even take a chance of looking at.

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

That's shoddy schoolbooks, not a fault of evolution (in fact it's probably the fault of politicians who refuse to spend money on the scientific disiplines (perhaps because they don't like the results)).

 

Psssttt... Don't tell anyone but... All history books say this because talking about creationalism in a way that makes it seem like the book accepts it over evolution would violate the law of no binding between the school and church.

 

 

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Where there is money, there is fraud. See the comments applied to Lucy.

 

Umm they're is money in every "evolution proving" find... so won't they're be a fraud according to your reasoning?

 

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Faith=Useless, dangerous foolishness, and should be treated like a mental disease.

 

Produce another website that agrees with this writer or this concept... one website that states this DOES NOT make it true... more sources please!

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Because the Bible is a work of fiction!

 

And where are you getting this "proof" that the Bible is fiction from? I want to see how you are making this assumption.

 

 

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Read the ****ing thread before you post such bull****.

 

Please lets keep it civilized here.

 

 

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Can the Bible tell you how to build a Boing? No, it is useless for that. Can the Bible tell you how to build a power plant? No. It is useless for that. And so on.

 

I assume you meant "Bong" instead of "Boing" and since the Bible is a RELIGIOUS BOOK it WON'T teach how to make a bong. And since when does a religious book tell how to make a powerplant or a bike? Those are two totally different fields. Get your facts straight, your example proves nothing. Construction Does not have anything to do with the Bible.

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Again: Can you build a plane/power plant/refrigirator/electrical light source/computer/anything else from the BibleBigBookofBullcrap? I think not.

 

And again... WHY ARE YOU COMPARING CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES TO A RELIGIOUS BOOK? Get your facts straight. People don't read and believe in the Bible to learn how to build a power plant.

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

You have the very essence of true power within reach, and yet you turn away, because of some obsolote, ancient book. Yet you use the positive results of this power, like a parasite without contributing anything. Words cannot begin to describe my contempt for such hypocracy.

 

What is this true power?!?! "True power" is considered by many to control the world. Christians do not want to control the world. And hypocracy? Parasites? What positive results and what "power"? If you are referring to evolution the I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about by Christians using the "positive results" from that. If you're talking about technology then you have no idea what you're talking about. My dad who is a Christian is working hard to make fiber optics systems THAT YOU WILL USE TO MAKE EVERYTHING IN YOUR HOUSE FASTER. Hmm, Christians aren't contributing? And my grand-father who is also a VERY storng Christian helped develop the VERY PLANES THAT PEOPLE FLY ON TODAY. Hmm, Chrisitans aren't contibuting? What "positive results" are Christians "using like parasites without contributing"? Unless I didn't understand what you were referring to then,once again, think before you type.

 

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Hogwash. There is O2, that's what's in the blood. Life in the blood? What bull****. Get your facts straight, or get the hell out!

 

Hmm I see you are very unfamiliar with the LIVING THINGS in our blood called CELLS that ARE ALIVE.

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

That's a CHRISTIAN practice. Get your facts straight, or get the hell out!

 

Oh man here we go again. THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT UNTIL COLUMBUS PROVED THEM WRONG. Where are you getting that this was a Christian practice? Sources, now. AND IN THE BIBLE IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE WORLD BEING FLAT.. i.e. IT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN PRACTICE.

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

 

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

 

I have more but this post is becoming way to long so if you ask... I will give.

 

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

The Unholy Bible doesn't show anything to be true or not true! Period! Get your facts straight, or get the hell out.

 

Website that proves this? Where? Oh wait there is no website.

 

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

And as a note on the side: Your "God" never did anything for me. I am what I am today because I worked for it. I don't owe "God" anything. Your "God" never righted any wrong that befell me (and that same "God" should know that quite a few have). I have nothing to be thankful towards "God" for!

 

Then I honesly feel sorry for you because He has done a lot for me because I ASKED and BELIEVED that He could do things in my life.

 

SORRY FOR THE LONG POST BUT THE POST I WAS REPLYING TO WAS A VERY LONG ONE AND SOME THINGS SAID IN IT REALLY GOT ME GOING.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

By "peer-reviewed" do you mean magazines like the famous science ones? The reason proof about Creationalism doesn't appear in that is because they don't want to put it in there. Thye only want evolution.

 

They have no reason to. Each day, a theory is changed or modified. Why do you think they only want evolution? Scientists are only concerned with facts, how it happens.

 

Do you have any idea that these hard-core scientific magazines would make a fortune if irrefuatble proof of Creation were found true? Imagine that - every creationist from across the states would subscribe to these magazines in no time flat if that was the case. They have no motive to "only accept evolution". Conspiracy is useless without a real motive.

 

This is spam, what was posted on Lucy is not... it just something you don't want to even take a chance of looking at.

 

The post about Lucy was spam because it's already been disproven that her bones were found scattered several miles apart. It's simply not true, and firmly stating it is contributes nothing to this discussion.

 

All history books say this because talking about creationalism in a way that makes it seem like the book accepts it over evolution would violate the law of no binding between the school and church.

 

If presented with irrefutable evidence, there's nothing to stop them writing that. This "no binding between the school and the church" is yet more conspiracy hogwash. It has nothing to do with this.

 

Umm they're is money in every "evolution proving" find... so won't they're be a fraud according to your reasoning?

 

No. What he implied was that wherever there's money, there's a chance some yahoo is going to make up some hoax and make that money.

 

While on the topic of hoaxes, creationists usually forget to mention all the expeditions sent to discover the ark, and later making a ton of money on that with cheap souvenir crap. And they have never found the ark yet.

 

Produce another website that agrees with this writer or this concept... one website that states this DOES NOT make it true... more sources please!

 

Is this an attempt at ridiculing our desire to see some actual proof on wild creationist claims?

 

Templar does not need to do this in the slightest, as this website only expresses opinions on religion. They're not fact. As soon as they become fact, we'll be sure to show it to you.

 

And where are you getting this "proof" that the Bible is fiction from? I want to see how you are making this assumption.

 

Fiction, in this sense, means that the authors of the Bible are trying to tell a soothing story. They have not seen God create the earth as described. They have not given any evidence for Jesus saving people's souls.

 

It's fiction because several parts in it are not true. The Genesis, for one.

 

I assume you meant "Bong" instead of "Boing"

 

Jesus most likely smoked the hashish, but he actually meant Boeing - the aeroplane.

 

and since the Bible is a RELIGIOUS BOOK it WON'T teach how to make a bong.

 

But it ignores fact. It preaches several fallacies.

 

What Templar is getting at, is that Christianity is trying to quench the work of scientists. Scientists are sticking to facts, and facts alone. They're not going to stop researching the origin of the earth because it makes them heretics. They're not going to stop, because the evidence is there that the earth was not created as God described.

 

If it stood to Christianity alone, not much scientific progress would have been made, since it was considered heresy to question the truth of the Bible. That is his point.

 

If you are referring to evolution the I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about by Christians using the "positive results" from that.

 

If it wasn't for Darwin and other evolutionists, we would never have advanced genetic knowledge we have today. Knowledge we use to save lives.

 

If it wasn't for crippling the Christian beliefs, we would never have reached this stage of technology.

 

Read up on the history of the dark ages, Copernicus and Galilei.

 

Hmm I see you are very unfamiliar with the LIVING THINGS in our blood called CELLS that ARE ALIVE.

 

Blood cells are not alive. They're solely resposible for carrying oxygen to the cells in our body.

 

Oh man here we go again. THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT

 

A few daring heretics in the dark ages still managed to present proof of it not being flat before Columbus reached America.

 

They were imprisoned for thinking this way, and nearly killed.

 

And Columbus didn't prove the earth was round. He proved it was larger than what was known beforehand.

 

Website that proves this? Where? Oh wait there is no website.

 

We don't need a website for everything.

 

The Bible does not show anything to be true or not true. That's giving proof and evidence of it. The Bible does not give evidence that we will be saved. The Bible does not give evidence that God created the earth. That's why it's fiction.

 

Then I honesly feel sorry for you because He has done a lot for me because I ASKED and BELIEVED that He could do things in my life.

 

Yet this can never be proved that it was He who "gave" that to you.

 

You can attribute everything to God. "Just look at the beauty of this pinecone" - that doesn't prove God. There's no connection between God and "There is life".

 

SORRY FOR THE LONG POST BUT THE POST I WAS REPLYING TO WAS A VERY LONG ONE AND SOME THINGS SAID IN IT REALLY GOT ME GOING.

 

No problem. Long posts like this are encourages. It's when you just copy paste some huge text from a website that makes me annoyed. Please continue.

[RpTheHotrod]

This is why I told you this debate is pointless...because it ISN"T a DEBATE.

 

A debate, both sides give "evidence" to something, and they debate.

 

Evo vs Creation...there is NO absolute evidence (if there was, evo would be thought as true by everyone, many scientists are beginning to re-think what they have been taught).

 

Yet... it seems every Evo side is this

 

"Evo is TRUE to there!"

 

Umm, that isn't debate....it would be just like me saying Creation is true, so there. You can't debate by saying your side is absolutely true...it wouldn't hold squat in a debate at all.

 

I just mentioned something I saw on the news and I get attacked and I'm told to "get the hell out!"?

 

I'm sick of people...I gave everything I've had, I've lost everything all in the name of helping others...but not once has any of them done anything back. Sometimes I get so tired of it. Get the hell out? yeah, why don't I***EDITED, best leave that out. Last thing I need is to be sent somewhere*** that'd make you happy then, wouldn't it? I know it would be easier for me, that's for sure.

 

 

Sick of it . Excuse me for speaking my mind.

[BCanr2d2]

This topic has before, and it seems always will easily get to a stage of "You show proof of your side, otherwise it's not exactly a debatable topic".

 

Whilst many of us on the Evolution side have evidence, and also have the evidence to show inaccuracies in the Bible, when we ask people to refute our facts, they use examples of 1960's science, which is being easily disproven in the last 15 or so years. Some people are on top of what the scientists have discovered as of now, whereas it is also still easy to find the "false" or "proven false" science still around in textbooks and on the internet.

As for many things used and invented in life, the root of them is more likely to be that of Greek or Roman, since they were two of the most intelligent civilisations to exist. To put it all into perspective, we are only now starting to understand Archimedes and scholars of that time properly, and that is 2000 years ago. Many of us evolutionists are trying to say that if you refute one part of the scientific, then how can you readily accept other parts of it. Almost all science is intertwined with each other, so to take one out of the loop isn't really possible, nor really logical.

Our current knowledge isn't the sum of all known things over the history of time. Many historical documents of earlier civilisations, including those of Roman and Greek origin are lost as cities cot razed when invaded. If not for the Punic wars, there is no telling as to where we would be right now, about 1500 years ahead of where we are now technologically is my rough guess.

If Da Vinci, one of the Renaissance's greatest thinkers couldn't decipher all of Archimedes designs, think how far backwards we had devolved in 1500 or more years. If the newly discovered copy of Archimedes text had made itself known to thinkers in the Renaissance, then we would be another 200 years ahead of where we are today.

Right at this moment in time, neither side can hold the absolute truth as to the beginning of life. All us Evolutionists can do is prove the innacurracies that exist in the text that the Creation Theory comes from, to prove that creation itself is false, as well as support our own arguements.

If a text can explain the birth of the main person in it in two different ways, then how can we say all of the Bible is literal and true when it contradicts itself......

[RpTheHotrod]

Please tell how it contradicts itself. I'll see what I can do.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

This is why I told you this debate is pointless...because it ISN"T a DEBATE.

 

What is it then? In a debate, rational arguments are put forth, and views on each side are backed up by evidence and logical proof.

 

A debate: where both sides are decided. Both sides have clear views on what they're arguing about, and they're not going to change their views from debating it. What they're doing is debating for the enjoyment of the onlooker.

 

Discussion: Where one or both sides don't hold clear views on what they're arguing. They're not firmly set in their minds about the topic, and are looking to acheive some sort of conclusion on the topic. An example would be where one person are just throwing in evidence and argumentation of one side, but are in fact not convinced about it yet. If the other side can refute it or prove him wrong, he'll work it out himself and be convinced.

 

This is just my definition of it. It's not fact.

 

Evo vs Creation...there is NO absolute evidence (if there was, evo would be thought as true by everyone, many scientists are beginning to re-think what they have been taught).

 

If you seriously think we have not presented pages of evidence, I'll suggest you look through the debate again. And check out the two previous debates on this.

 

And no, no evidence suggests that evolution is losing fans among scientists. A common myth, but it's completely unfounded.

 

Yet... it seems every Evo side is this

 

"Evo is TRUE to there!"

 

The assumption alone that there is such a thing as absolute truth I find moronic. We have never said that. We've always presented evidence for our theories.

 

I just mentioned something I saw on the news and I get attacked and I'm told to "get the hell out!"?

 

That was rude, I agree. But you must admit it's pretty stupid to post something about Lucy or what have you, that we just refuted a few posts back. And if you present something along the lines of baseless, incorrect facts - we'll frankly tell you to remove yourself from this debate until you get your facts straight.

 

I've lost everything all in the name of helping others...

 

Depends solely on how you define "helping". Reaching out to them and tell them of God's work? Sweet my, that's not helping. How would you feel if I continually pestered you with my great god Flakziliakrrrrrs? That his view of the world is a skewed, incorrect one that involves liquifying humans and turning stone into grapewine - one that blatantly ignores facts? I'm sure you wouldn't want to be "helped" this way.

 

However, the way I would like to be helped, is if people kindly told me more about genetics, architecture, thermodynamics and astronomy. Something I can put to practical use. Something I obviously benefit from, and that can never hurt to know more of. Told me how it really worked - disspelled all the myths about it and showed me a better understanding of the world around me. That's science, for you.

[C'jais]

As requested - a general outline of the evidence for evolution:

 

1) The world is old. 4.5 billion years.

 

2) The lifeforms on it are of varying age. Some died out long ago, some just came into existence the last 7 million years. Some are only found in older rocks, some are only found in younger rocks.

 

3) Fossils indicate that all the species evolved through stages. For example, there have been found old fossils of invertebrates, younger fossils of fish without spines, but remniscient of fish, and even younger fossils of vertebrates. Another example is the Archeopteryx - it is not a bird in any way except for the fact that it had feathers on its reptile legs. Yet another would be all the various horse stages - from looking like big dogs, the oldest fossils gradually change through time to look more and more like horses with hooves etc.

 

4) Not all the species that ever lived could have lived together on planet earth at the same time. There would simply not be enough space or food. And don't give me that "abundant earth" bullcrap - if there was somehow food for all these species to consume at once, we'd immediately find huge, glaring evidence of that in 6000 year old rocks and strata. It's flat out logically impossible.

 

5) We can see changes in species even today. Among them are bacteria and various insect species which have changed so much in our lifetime to classify them as a completely new species. We can observe changes in species to fit the environment better (Galapagos finches), that it's only logical to connect this with the overwhelming fossil record and state with certainty that species change over time to new species that fit the environment better.

 

6) DNA. Changes in a species match the DNA changes. We've already located where the DNA code corresponds to different organs and other physcial attributes. By using tests, we can ascertain how much of a species DNA is equal that of another. Mutations in the genome accumulate over time, and by using this, we can ascertain how long (based on mutation rates) time ago these two species split off.

 

You have your work cut out for you. But please don't repeat arguments your fellow Creationists already have gotten refuted. Don't waste my time.