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.
evolution?....lalalalal I can't hear you lalalala!!
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.
Where do you think all this he's posting is coming from? I'm sure Manny's a smart guy, but he's not making this up as he goes along.
In regards to helium:
Claim CE001:
The radioactive decay of several elements produces helium, which migrates to the atmosphere. There is too little helium in the atmosphere to account for the amount that would have been produced in 4.5 billion years. Escape of helium into space is not sufficient to account for the lack.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 150-151.
Response:
1. Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).
A collection of responses to the Creationists claims is found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
In regards to Ocean sediments:
Claim CD220:
At current rates of erosion, only thirty million years are needed to account for all the sediments in the ocean. If the earth were as ancient as is claimed, there should be more sediments.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 155-156.
Response:
1. The thickness of sediment in the oceans varies, and it is consistent with the age of the ocean floor. The thickness is zero at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new ocean crust is forming, and there is about 150 million years' worth of sediment at the continental margins. The average age of the ocean floor is younger than the earth due to subduction at some plate margins and formation of new crust at others.
2. The age of the ocean floor can be determined in various ways -- measured via radiometric dating, estimated from the measured rate of seafloor spreading as a result of plate tectonics, and estimated from the ocean depth that predicted from the sea floor sinking as it cools. All these measurements are consistent, and all fit with sediment thickness.
On the subject of oil field pressure:
Claim CD231:
The high pressures found in oil and gas wells are proof of a young earth. If the earth were old, the pressures would have bled off by now.
Source:
Hovind, Kent, n.d. Universe is not "billions of years" old. http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.js...ofYearsOld.jsp
Response:
1. The high pressures show that the oil and gas are trapped by rock impermeable enough to hold such reservoirs for many millions of years. If the assumptions (young earth and leaky rocks) behind the claim were true, the pressures never would have built up in the first place.
2. A geological event which could cause oil and gas to migrate into a reservoir could have occurred relatively recently. Even if the oil field is young, that does not mean the oil, much less the earth, is young.
In regards to meteors and meteorites
The observed rate of cosmic dust influx should have produced a layer 182 feet thick over the entire surface of the earth if the earth were 5 billion years old. The distinctive nickel and iron content of the dust should make it easy to detect.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 151-152.
Response:
1. The observed rates used in Morris's calculation are based on dust collected in the atmosphere; this measurement was contaminated by dust from the earth. More recent measurements of cosmic dust influx measured from satellites give an influx rate about 1 percent as large, corresponding to a layer 66 cm thick at most over 4.5 billion years (Kyte and Wasson 1986). An even more recent study of iridium and platinum in a Greenland ice core yields an estimate of only about 14 kilotons per year of meteoric dust during the Holocene, compared with the figure of 14 million tons per year that Morris used (Gabrielli et al. 2004).
Claim CD111:
Meteorites are never found in deeper strata.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 27.
Response:
1. Several meteorites have been found, in strata from Precambrian to Miocene (Matson 1994; Schmitz et al. 1997). There is evidence that a major asteroid disruption event about 500 million years ago caused an increase in meteor rates during the mid-Ordovician; more than forty mid-Ordovician fossil meteorites were found in one Ordovician limestone quarry (Schmitz et al. 2003). In addition, many impact craters and other evidence of impacts have been found.
Joch, I have a question for you, and I mean absolutely no disrespect. When reading these results of scientific studies done in the modern era that support the evolutionary theory, do you think the scientists are wrong, or that God made everything the way it is for a reason, and we're not supposed to understand?
I'm just curious, because this same argument, albeit in a more primitive form, was debated by Plato in Book VII of the Republic.
Not to butt in, but I believe the part..the God made everything the way it is for a reason, and we're not supposed to understand but then again I believe that God gave us, well not necessarily me, the ability to think and reason.
Quote:
Originally posted by MannyIsGod
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.
Lengthy but quite informative.
FOSSILS WHICH ARE THE PRESERVATION JUST THE CARBON ('CARBONIZATION' = COAL)
"This is the third way listed by Professor Miller whereby fossil remains can be preserved, having reference to the formation especially of coal, in which the hydrogen and oxygen largely disappear from the organic remains, leaving only the carbon but often also leaving the original structure beautifully preserved. The coal deposits of the world are of course tremendous in magnitude, with the exact amount quite uncertain, but somewhere around 7 trillion tons.
'About all we really know about coal reserves is that there appears to be lots of coal in the world... Instead of 7 trillion tons, there may be double that. On the other hand, there may be less than half that.'...
[Eugene Ayres and Charles A. Scarlott: Energy Sources: the Wealth of the World (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1952), p. 53]
...Coal is the end product of the metamorphism of tremendous quan ies of plant remains under the action of temperature, pressure and [evolutionists' claim: ages of] time. Coal has been found throughout the geologic column and in all parts of the world, even in Antartica. Many coal fields contain great numbers of coal-bearing strata, interbedded with strata of other materials, each coal seam having a thickness which may vary from a few inches to several feet. And each foot of coal must represent many feet - just how many, no one knows - of plant remains, so that the coal measures testify of the former existence of almost unimaginably massive ac ulations of buried plants.
Coal geologists have long been divided into two camps, those favoring the autochthonous (growth-in-place) theory of coal origin and those favoring the allochthonous (transportation and deposition) theory [which is consistent with the Noahic Flood]. Consistent uniformitarianism, of course, tends to favor the former and attempts to picture the coal-forming [growth in place theory] process in terms of modern peat deposits forming under swamplands, such as in the Dismal Swamp of Virginia. The great thickness of the coal beds is accounted for on this theory by assuming a continuous subsidence [= a subsiding: a sinking of vegetation to the 'bottom'] of the land more or less keeping up with the slow ac ulation of plant remains. The interbedded strata of non-carbonaceous deposits [= inorganic material] are [again] explained by [assuming] alternating marine transgressions [i.e., periodic local flooding] and resulting periods of sediment deposition...
[But it has been well established that interbedding of this sort with many undisturbed and uniform demarcation seams cannot be attributed to sequential and long periods of time which would erode and break up those seams but rather - to one short period of time]
...A wide variety of types of these intervening sediments have been noted and attempts made to explain them in terms of 'cyclothems' or recurring cycles of deposition of different kinds of materials corresponding to the different stages of marine transgression and regression....
If the autochthonous [growth in place] theory of coal bed is correct, it is testimony to quite a marvelous sequence of cir stances. One or two or three coal seams formed by alternate stages of swamp growth, peat ac ulation, marine transgression and emergence, etc., might be believable, but the assertion that this cycle was repeated scores of times in the same spot, over a period of perhaps millions of years, is not so easy to accept....
This theory, which is purportedly uniformitarian in essence, is actually anything but that, as there is no modern parallel for any of its major features. The peat-bog theory cons utes a very weak attempt to identify a modern parallel, but it will hardly suffice....
...there is no actual evidence that peat is now being transformed into coal anywhere in the world....
As a matter of fact, except for uniformist preconceptions, it would seem that the actual physical evidence of the coal beds strongly favors the theory that the plant ac ulations had been washed into place. The coal seams are almost universally found in stratified deposits. The non-carbonaceous sediments intervening between the coal seams are always said to have been water-borne and deposited. The great thickness of some seams and the great numbers of seams in a given locality also cons ute prima facie evidence of rapid and cyclic currents carrying and depositing heavy burdens of organic material...
Space precludes further discussion or the question of coal formation, although many more evidences could be marshalled in favor of the allochthonous [transportation and deposition] theory, such as the frequent splitting of coal seams into two or more independent seams, the many fossil trunks that have been found extending through two or more seams, the 'coal balls' of matted and exceptionally well-preserved fossils, the great boulders often found in coal beds, the frequent grading of coal seams into stratified layers of shale or other sedimentary rock, etc....
Regardless of the exact manner in which coal was formed, it is quite certain that there is nothing corresponding to it taking place in the world today. This is one of the most important of all types of geologic formations and one on which much of our supposed geologic history been based. Nevertheless, the fundamental axiom of uniformity, that the present is the key to the past, completely fails to account for the phenomena..."
[pp. 175-176]
"Another amazing find was reported many years ago, that of a fossilized human skull in the coal measures. the outstanding authority on coal geology, Otto Stutzer, says concerning this mysterious fossil:
'In the coal collection in the Mining Academy in Freiberg [Stutzer was Professor of Geology and Mineralogy in the School of Mines at Freiberg, in Saxony], there is a puzzling human skull composed of brown coal and manganiferous and phosphatic limonite, but its source is not known. This skull was described by Karsten and Dechen in 1842.
[Otto Stutzer: Geology of Coal (Transl. by A. C. Noe, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1940), p. 271]
The coal was presumably Tertiary in age but at any rate is supposed to have far antedated the first appearance of man. The evidence again seems mostly to have been ignored, although it has been suggested that someone must have carved the skull!"
v) 'FOSSILS WHICH ARE THE PRESERVATION OF JUST THE ORIGINAL FORM IN CASTS OR MOLDS
[pp. 165-166]
"This is another means of fossil preservation, whereby the original organic substance entombed in the sediments dissolves away, either leaving a cavity having the form of the original organism, or else being replaced by some sort of mineral water which is then cast into the form of the original organism. Once again this sort of preservation requires sudden or catastrophic burial, followed by rather rapid cementation of the surrounding sediments, in order for the mold to be preserved. The remains at the Roman cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum, entombed by volcanic materials, offer an excellent illustration of this type of fossilization. The principle of uniformity again fails to provide modern examples of this type of process except in terms of intense aqueous or volcanic action..."
vi) PETRIFIED FOSSILS
"This process is similar to that of the formation of a mold and subsequent cast in that it consists of detailed replacement of the organic material by mineral water, usually brought about by the action of underground water. The famous petrified forests of the Yellowstone Park region and of Arizona are familiar examples of this process. The exact details of the process of petrifaction are not known, although the usual associations of petrified wood and other materials indicate that volcanic action has been a contributing factor. The petrified forest of Arizona, as well as other regions, also shows action of subsequent flood waters as a probable agent of deposition of the materials in their present location. In any case, some sort of catastrophic agent is again necessary for at least the burial of the materials before the agencies of petrification can begin their work...."
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k33b.htm
Let me first say that the debate in this thread has been alluded to by some as being "uncivilized" but I don't see it that way. I enjoy exchanging information and an occasional taunt or jab, it's all in good fun and at times educational, at least to me.
And now on to your question
I am convinced that there is a God and believe whole-heartedly in the innerancy of the Bible. I was raised in a Christian home where my Dad had a full-time job and was (not now actively preaching from a pulpit) an ordained minister. I was taught evolution in school and never considered it to be meant as excluding God as my creator because it wasn't presented in that way or if it was it did not have that effect.
I do believe that the scientists that support evolution to the exclusion of God are absolutely incorrect. I don't know how familiar you are with Scripture but there are some which directly address you question of us not being able to understand things. All taken from Corinthinans.
25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,
And one more:
11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known
These to me suggest that God made thngs for a reason and that we do not and will not fully understand his creative process. At least not on this side of heaven.
The fact that we (those who believe in God) cannot comprehend how He has always existed; never had a beggining shows we're not supposed to understand everything.
And like Robert Jastrow said once, in the divine act of creation, God is not observed nor has any witnesses... He has no obligation to explain things to us.
So God made evolution.
Smart guy.
i'd like someone to explain how all these animals evolved into other animals and like i've been told, i don't buy that at all
i've heard like they evolved to adapt to the environment. right....
i am sure while they are ing they send messages to their sperm so it will create a different being to better adapt
if not what? a mutation, and that mutated animal figured out it was better suited and just keep creating more mutated animals. for all these animals to keep these crazy mutations far fetched. this is just some of the i have heard
Henry Wu: You are saying that a group of animals, entirely composed of females, will breed?
Ian Malcolm: No, I am merely stating that uhh... life finds a way.
Jurassic Park had a FAT hole in the book and the movie they never really explained how female Dinosaurs were turning into male...........
Anyways, what about all the different animal similiarties?
Dogs and Wolves
Cats and Lions/tigers/panthers/jaguars/cheetahs/sabertooth tiger etc.......
Ducks and Chickens
Lizards and Reptiles/Dinosaurs/Birds
Humans and Monkeys/Apes/Chimps
Could it be somewhere along the chain that these animals could have a common ancestor that evolved into the beings they were today?
When a new speicies start how do they?
Take a look at it this way..... What came first the Chicken or the Egg? Niether it was a product of evoultion......
clearly both sides in this debate are hypocrites
More problems with the theory of evolution:
1. The Big Bang theory is based on solid data and would show that the Universe had a finite beginning in time (about 15 billion years ago) - before that it didn't exist. How did everything come out of something that didn't exist, if there is no God?
2. Some argue that the earth is 4 billion years old. This is not enough time for evolution to have happened. The rate of mutations likely to be helpful is not large enough to explain the development of all things, especially the first cell from non-living chemicals. Some scientists can see this and have therefore postulated that life originated somewhere else (not on earth) and came to earth by something called panspermia. In this way, they put the problem back, but the solution to the problem of life's origin remains still unknown. See Reasons to Believe for more information on Creation and Time and the astronomical evidence for God's existence.
2. No model has ever succesfully been given for the evolution of the first biological cell from random chemical reactions over a long period of time. Just as a mousetrap that misses just one part has no use, so the majority of bio-chemical mechanisms in nature would not work if just one of their component parts were missing (waiting to be evolved). Then how would blind chance ever favor these incredibly improbable PARTIAL inventions? It would surely destroy them.
What we are being asked to believe is that random processes generate real information in the genetic code. Using this logic, enough nuclear accidents would lead to great improvements in the human race. Even Microsoft Windows 95 with all its faults was not the result of random events (though some might contest that!). How much less the human DNA code?
3. The fossil record speaks against classical Darwinian evolution, not in its favour. Where are all the transitional fossils? There should be billions of them in the earth if random processes led to major changes in species. Why don't we find them? (Hint: they never existed). Punctuated equilibrium, the "hopeful monster" theory and other similar ones just show how bankrupt the theory of evolution really is. You don't need evidence for a theory that by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do. As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the true keys to evolution's popularity.
Some Biological Problems of the Natural Selection Theory - Dr. Jerry Bergman
4. If any of the constants of physics were just a little different, Life would be impossible for many reasons. But why do the laws of physics exist? And why are these constants just right for the existence of life? Has someone "monkeyed with the constants of physics" to make life possible?
5. All the so-called "missing links" between apes and man are either frauds or pure speculations based on very scanty "evidence". The earth should be replete with them if millions of small changes between man and ape account for the evolution of man from apes.
6. Some creatures, like the honey bee, just can't be accounted for by the theory of natural selection, since the honey bees themselves don't pass on genetic information.
http://www.christian-faith.com/html/...inism_debunked
Joch, it has been said in the scriptures that Moses was asked to bring down a feast from heaven then the pagans would believe in him. Moses did that now.....If you were able to show some sign which you can't and no one can then I'll believe you, right now science has been able to show more facts and data.
I'm not at all bothered by those that are strict evolutionists other than the fact that what I believe has eternal ramifications for all. No one can force me to adhere to the flawed theory of evolution and no one can be forced to believe in Creationism by intelligent design.
No one decides for anyone else. Evolution or Creationism, Heaven or for eternity. Freedom to choose.
Unless people are absolutely sure that God doesn't exist and there is no chance of eternity in Heaven or and they personally don't care one way or the other, then they at least should inform their families and friends to explore both possibilities.
I'd hate to be one of those in who are being sought out by their loved ones in perhaps with tears streaming down their face, screaming at them when they find them; "Why, why didn't you tell me?"
Unless you're sure beyond a shadow of a doubt, that possibility could become a reality. To scoff at this would shows total disregard for them.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 08-28-2005 at 08:19 AM.
Parents fighting for their childrens rights in School
Parents of some schoolchildren in Cobb County, Georgia are in a huff over warning labels that have been placed on science textbooks in that school district. The labels read "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
They were placed on books two years ago after more than 2,000 parents complained that the schools were teaching Darwinian evolution as fact, ignoring evidence that is critical of evolution as well as the competing theory of intelligent design.
Michael Manely, an ACLU lawyer who is representing the pro-evolution parents in a lawsuit, illustrates the over-the-top reaction to the warning labels by accusing the school board of "doing more than accommodating religion. They are promoting religious dogma to all students."
This is certainly not the first textbook controversy regarding the evolution versus intelligent design debate. Such controversies have stirred elsewhere, although the cir stances in most cases are similar. Parents are simply asking that evolution be taught as a theory -- not as a set of proven facts -- and that Darwinism be presented side-by-side with counter-evidence and/or intelligent design theory.
The idea is that students should be allowed to weigh the evidence of competing theories themselves. It's called "critical thinking," and is normally encouraged in scientific disciplines, Darwinian evolution being one of the few exceptions.
A CBS poll released on November 22 showed that more than half of all Americans do not believe in human evolution. Only 13% of those polled believe that God was not involved in the process. Breaking it down, 47% of Kerry voters believe God created humans as we are now, compared with 67% of Bush voters. Furthermore, more than half the Kerry voters -- and two-thirds of all those polled -- want creation taught alongside evolution. Predictably, belief in evolution is greatest among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
Darwinism's dirty little secret is that it is science's equivalent of the pyramid scheme in finance. Evolution, which argues that life on Earth began and has evolved through a complicated process of random events and genetic mutation, has never been observed. Therefore, the empirical evidence normally required to validate scientific theory has never been gathered. The fossil records Darwinists typically cite as proof are filled with missing gaps that are only explained by piling theory on top of theory. At the base of this pyramid, where a collection of credible evidence should exist, there is only more theory.
To illustrate this point, I have listed five questions I've always wanted to ask Darwinists. These questions are answered very simply under the intelligent design explanation of our origins. The task isn't quite as simple for evolutionists, because they view our origins through the prism of science, and science, which is nothing more than man's understanding of the physical world around him, cannot explain the origins of the universe and life on earth. If Darwinists were to answer the following questions honestly, they too would have to concede that something quite supernatural occurred at our genesis -- an admission for which Darwinism has made no room.
Question #1: The big-bang theory typically cited by Darwinists states that all matter in the universe once existed as a single super-sphere which at some point exploded, its fragments coalescing into the stars, planets, and other celestial objects we observe today. If this is true, which random process created that original super-sphere out of nothing?
Question #2: How did the human race evolve from single-cell organisms, such as amoebae, and become randomly separated into two equally-populated genders which are mutually attracted to each other? Furthermore, how is it that only females are uniquely equipped to bear and nourish offspring?
Question #3: Gravity is an invisible, non-magnetic attraction between two physical objects. It's what keeps the Earth in a nearly symmetrical orbit around the sun, and prevents us here on Earth from flying off into space. Please explain how gravity came into being without an intelligent designer.
Question #4: Which random processes produced the human brain? This complex organ is not only capable of the computer-like functions of logic, memory, and computation, but also such emotions as love, hate, joy, and fear, which artificial intelligence engineers have heretofore been unable to duplicate in laboratories.
Question #5: If evolution is the fact-laden, open-and-shut, slam-dunk case Darwinists make it out to be, what's the harm in placing it side-by-side with intelligent design? If indeed Darwinism is above reproach, then the facts should easily tilt the scales in its favor. But they don't.
That's why those hostile to Christianity, or at least intelligent design, must protect evolution by censoring counter-evidence and counter-theory. Darwinism is a fraud -- a crutch, if you will -- which its advocates use in order to explain our origins without having to admit there is a God.
Evolutionists ridicule the idea of intelligent design as being the product of a primitive, flat earth-type religious dogma. Ironically, and despite the self-proclaimed "science" label that Darwinists have assigned to their belief system, it requires far more religious faith to believe in evolution than the creation story described in Genesis.
Just to let you know Joch, I too am religous. I believe in God etc......
Good, the message was general in nature, not specific to you.
Pascal's wager.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote