Reply With Quote
Joch, do you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old?
I havent really been reading everything in this thread (just kinda skimming) and I dont feel like getting into a Evolution vs. Creation Debate, but I did see something that caught my eye. This quote:
Im not trying to bash anyone here who doesnt believe exactly what I do, but i wanna ask you. If you believe what ES said in that quote (the stuff about us being fancy monkeys on a tiny planet...), I ask you, what are you/we living for? Does life even matter?
Think about it.
Joch, do you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old?
Allow me to preface this answer by stating that along with the many irrefutable arguements that render evolution as the unproveable theory that it is evolutionist's know that they must maintain that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and if that premise is disproven then all logical discussion on the validity of evolution comes to an abrupt end.
And now I'll submit a few of the many arguements by Dr. Walter Brown that defies the most protected and essential working point for evolution's theory to even begin.
Dr. Walter Brown: Dr. Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins.
Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence.
Helium
One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. Helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.
Lead and Helium Diffusion
Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found.a Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals.b Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old.
Excess Fluid Pressure
Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock. If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently.
River Sediments
More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport was much greater in the past as the looser topsoil was removed and as erosion smoothed out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have ac ulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. Consequently, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old.
Shallow Meteorites
Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have, expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface.a Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers.b If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.
Similar observations can be made concerning ancient rock slides. Rock slides are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock.
Smeagol, help yourself to much of what Dr Brown has to say on the subject.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
Again, do you believe the Earth was created 6000 yearth ago? How many years ago did the dinosaurs roam the Earth?
Until global warming destroyed them or was it man destroyed them, I cant
remember. Bye the way does anyone remember the ice age? That is until
they invented the automobile, no, they didn't have them then, did they? I
know, Darwin must have a theory for it, I mean after all he was God wasn't
he? One question tho: how come we still have Monkeys if evoloution
occured?
Smeagol, no, I don't have a 100% firm belief on the earth being 6,000 years to the extent that it does not lend credence to the ridiculous theory of evolution, which is propagated by atheists. I haven't put much time into that particular study.
Genesis states that God created the earth in 6 days *.
*Days is Genesis is taken from the Hebrew word Yom which is generally interpreted as a 24 hour day.
"Most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young."
Last edited by jochhejaam; 08-27-2005 at 11:15 AM.
I think if joche takes his cues from a book...then I can take my cues from a book as well...Origin of Species.
Dude, Joch, the first post you made is about the origion of life. It has nothing to do with evolution.
Regardless of how life came about, evolution is the process life evoles through after it is in ially created. So, that isn't a hole in evolutionary theory.
I'm going to read your other posts now, and respond to each one. In the future, include links or a source.
Oh, and I do find it extremely paranoid and somewhat amusing that Joch believes everyone "propagates" ideas he does not believe in must be an atheist.
So, explain to me how that puts a bullet through evolutions heart?
http://www.fsteiger.com/thermo.htmlCreationists believe that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to arise from disorder, and therefore the macro evolution of complex living things from single-celled ancestors could not have occurred. Regardless of whether or not evolution might have taken place, the mathematics of thermodynamics and observation of the world around us makes it very clear: order can spontaneously arise from disorder. Let me reiterate that the subject here is limited to thermodynamics only. The issue to be resolved is simply this: does thermodynamics permit or does it not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder? The laws of thermodynamics and observation of the world around us make it very clear: order can and does arise spontaneously from disorder.
Creationists have not been able to refute the fact that thermodynamics does, in fact, permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. However, instead of conceding defeat, they have attempted to change the laws of thermodynamics by stating that thermodynamics applies only to systems that are completely isolated from their surroundings. Creationist pseudo-thermodynamics, when applied to open systems, are based on the idea that second of law of thermodynamics would not ordinarily apply to open systems, and therefore there must be a "growth directing program" and/or "energy conversion mechanism" which would "supersede" the second law of thermodynamics. Since these postulated mechanisms are completely fic ious, the creationist position is tantamount to saying that the second law does not apply to open systems.
There is a method in this creationist madness: creationists hide the fact that it is only the over-all entropy of a collection of interacting systems that can not spontaneously decrease; the entropy of each of the interacting individual systems can either increase or decrease. However, creationists state flatly that entropy can never spontaneously decrease, and hence order can never spontaneously arise from disorder. Page 40 of Scientific Creationism, published by the Ins ute for Creation Research, states: "All real processes go with an increase in entropy." This statement is contradicted by the fact that the growth of living things represents order spontaneously arising from disorder. Creationism is forced to concoct a fic ious pseudo-thermodynamics which "supersedes" the Second Law to "explain" the obvious anomaly. On page 43 we read "Now, if one examines closely all such [open] systems to see what it is that enables them to supersede the Second Law locally and temporarily..." The text goes on to postulate "explanations" based on the fictional terms ("growth directing program," "energy conversion mechanism") mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Manny, dude,the theory of evolution has to have a starting point and if it's premise for it's beginning is shown to be faulty then the whole theory goes out the window. Don't get mad at me because the evolutionist's premise doesn't wash after scientific study and experiment
If you want to say, "hey, I know the theory of evolution isn't really possible but lets look at it anyway", okay.
Unfounded personal attacks, I think that's called libel? Not surprising that in absence of intelligent rebuttal to the arguements put forth you would have to stoop to that again.
There have been lots of disagreements to some of my posts in the forum, care to authenticate just a few of these instances? (not that it has anything to do with your thread)
Followup by MannyOriginally Posted by jochhejaam
Maybe you'll be able to come up with a more significant response to this;
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.
1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.
I highlighted (not that'll you'll get it with highlighting
Nice in depth response to years of scientific research and study Manny : "and how does this put a bullet through evolutions heart". I'll fax it to W.D.N.H.O.T.E.F.C. (we desperately need help with our theory of evolution fast center)." I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
I see by the content of your responses that you don't really have anything appoaching substantial rebuttals.
Weak Manny.
So we don't get energy from the sun?
Libel has to be false. I believe the above was an appropriate labeling to you saying that evolution is only propagted by atheists. If the shoe fits...
Wow, you just blew away the arguements Duff, good stuff!
Feel free to actually rebut the arguements, Manny needs all the help he can get.
The theory of evoution doesn't have to have a starting point. You don't seem to be able to grasp that evolution is the explanation of how we got this many species and how they evolve, not how the origonated.Manny, dude,
If you want to say, "hey, I know the theory of evolution isn't really possible but lets look at it anyway", okay.
But its funny because when you take that last line, it describes your look at thermodynamics.
Feel free to stop your fluff posting and read the post above which completely kills your idea's on thermodynamics.Wow, you just blew away the arguements Duff, good stuff!
Feel free to actually rebut the arguements, Manny needs all the help he can get.
.Originally posted by Manny : Joch believes everyone "propagates" ideas he does not believe in must be an atheist
Find a few of you infer are many such posts or you can talk to my attorney.
off the beaten path again but that's where you're most comfortable in this thread.
Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful. Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:
- Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
- Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
- Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
- Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
- Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
- A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
- Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
- In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
- Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one cir stance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
- High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
- Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13)
I'm not freakin' going through your link. I didn't even open it.
Post something substantial without posting a link and I'll consider it.
Why does this topic get everyone so riled up?
Have we not evolved enough to have civil discussions?
Claim CC361.1:
Oil and coal can form rapidly. Their formation is more a matter of heat and pressure than of time. Millions of years are not necessary to account for them. Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 109-110.
Response:
- Coal deposits show evidence of a history. Most coals are found in sedimentary rocks deposited in flood plains. They often contain stream channels, roots, and soil horizons. Long time may not be necessary to form the coal itself, but it is necessary to account for the context where coal is found.
It's all in the post, why would you need to go to the link? I provide the links so that people can see my reference and judge the credibility of it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions