Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Arguements for a young earth.
    #2245356 - 01/16/04 12:55 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I found this here. Does anyone see anything wrong with any of them?

Quote:

? According to calculations by Bishop Usher in the early 1600s, the Earth is really only about 6,000 years old. Usher, a great scholar, knew when Nebuchadnezzar lived, and he worked his way backwards through the genealogies and came up with a creation date of 4004 BC. Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould stated that if Bishop Usher was right about the Bible being true, then the date would be correct.6




This is based on the premise that the bible is correct.


Quote:

? The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which evolutionists date by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.63





I thought fossils were carbondated. Because carbon has a predictable half life, specimen dating can be extrapolated based on the amount of carbon in a specimen.


Quote:

? Naturalists choose an "index fossil," one that is in a certain layer and date it by when they think it evolved - not by Carbon-14 dating, nor potassium-argon, nor by uranium-lead dating. They date the fossil by when they think it evolved. Then they date the rock by the fossil, and then they prove evolution by the date on the rock. This is circular reasoning.6

? They cling to these assumptions even though there is a lot of scientific evidence for a young Earth.





I have a feeling this isn't true, see above.




Quote:

? Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, Earth's population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago, comparing very well with the number of people on Noah's Ark. Based on evolution's claim for the origin of man, the same ? percent growth calculation for the human race results in a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics.30




This assumes that humans began reproducing right at the earth's beginning. An evolutionist would object. Also, population growth can't be modeled with a linear equation, it's exponential.

Quote:

? Rivers pour tons of material every year into the Earth's oceans. Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy the quantity of each element's influx as well as the current concentration of these elements in the oceans. By simple division, they can calculate the time it took to reach present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation. None of these elements give an age of the Earth even coming close to billion of years.30




Kind of a loaded premise. It doesn't allow for pangea to break apart, for ice ages to form glaciers to carve rivers, etc.



Quote:

? Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several "strata" of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them.30 At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.10





I don't understand why this is damning to evolutionists.

Quote:

? When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date many different things including oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by this method revealed them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating oil and coal using this method.30

? Laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. Modern laboratories can duplicate the formation of coal formation in a matter of days - or even hours. Furthermore, massive seams of coal in the Earth remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken.10






I'm not sure about this one, does anyone know differently?



Quote:

? The Biblical account of Noah's Flood's description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up strongly indicates volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins. This would have provided several of the key factors needed for the production of coal, along with an explanation of how the process could have occurred at such a rapid pace.10




???




Quote:

? The pressure in modern day oil fields is too high for them to be very old. Current estimates indicate that the longest a rock layer could keep oil under pressure would be 100,000 years. Oil is simply not as old as evolutionists' claim.30




Perhaps the pressure has grown recently due to technonic movement?

Quote:

? It is well known that the interior of the Earth is very hot. For each mile you descend, the temperature increases by 118 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth is a thousand miles in diameter; the core is so hot that the rocks are molten. Yet as Earth passes through the extreme cold of outer space, it's losing its heat. Even with the heat it receives from the sun, Earth's net heat loss is 1027 calories per second. This means that if it started at 190 degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, Earth would have been frozen stone cold to the center in the first 40 million years. If it were four billion years old, it should have been a huge sphere of ice over 100 times by now.6




One of the mass extinctions is believed to have been caused by Earth being blasted by gamma rays. Could such events add heat to the earth?


Quote:

? Earth's spin is slowing down at a rate of one third of a second every year. Extrapolating this back billions of years, we obtain an unreasonable spinning speed for the Earth.30




Would comet bombardment give the Earth's rotation more momentum?


Quote:

? Earth's magnetic field has been measured since 1835. It is growing weaker and the rate at which it is growing weaker has been calculated. If we extrapolate backwards, even to 20,000 BC, the magnetic field would have been so strong Earth would have been like a star and nothing could have lived here. Extrapolating further back, it would have been so strong it would have crushed the surface of the Earth in on itself.6

? Evolutionists say that the magnetic field of the Earth has shifted from positive to negative at times - that's how it keeps going. But observations of the sun's magnetic field's changing from positive to negative show it loses more energy each time instead of gaining energy. Applying the same criteria to the magnetic field of the Earth, we see is that it drops the age of our planet to about six to eight thousand years.6






Does anyone know differently?



Quote:

? Like a giant vacuum cleaner, the sun sweeps up almost 100,000 tons of inflow per day. The sun's radiation pressure also pushes small, dust particles outward into space. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. If the solar system is really billions of years old, then the solar system should have been swept clean by now. Unfortunately for evolutionists, tons of space dust remain in our solar system.30




Maybe the space dust is suspended in gravitational tug of wars between stellar objects?



Quote:

? When spiral galaxies make one full turn they leave behind distinctive pairs of arms because the interior stars move around faster than the outer stars. These galaxies are supposed to make one full turn every hundred million years meaning they should have a pair of arms for every 100 million years. If the Earth is five billion years old, galaxies should have so many arms they couldn't be counted. But astronomers haven't been able to find a galaxy with more than three pairs of arms, meaning they haven't been able to find one that's even half a billion years old.6




The math here makes me ignore this one. Every hundred million years produces an "arm." At five billion years, that would be 50. How is fifty so many that they couldn't be counted. Sounds pretty sketchy.


Quote:

? A star cluster contains hundreds or thousands of stars moving, as one author put it, "like a swarm of bees," held together by gravity. But in some clusters, the stars are moving so fast that they could not have held together for millions or billions of years. Star clusters tell us that the age of the universe should be measured in thousands of years.30




What? Do we completely understand gravity in complex systems?

Quote:

? When big stars run out of fuel, they explode. Some of these "super nova remnants" are visible from the Earth. According to astronomical theory, in galaxies of our size, approximately 7,250 super nova remnants should be visible. Using the creationist age of the galaxy, we should expect to find between 125 and 200 super nova remnants. The actual number of super nova remnants visible from the Earth is 205, which is very close to the creationist numbers.30




Every galaxy has a blackhole at its center. Not even light can escape black holes. Perhaps the super nova remnents are trapped there?


Feel free to contribute for or against these.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245376 - 01/16/04 01:02 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Debunking creationism? You must be really bored. Why not try something challenging?


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2245391 - 01/16/04 01:09 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Debunking creationism? You must be really bored. Why not try something challenging? 




The more I study, the more I find that evolutionists and creationists say the same things about each other.  I'm being a true skeptic and entertaining both theories.  Remember, the evolution theory is pretty hard to accept at times, hold your hand up and wiggle your fingers...whoa :nut:


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245406 - 01/16/04 01:18 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

the evolution theory



You mean the fact of evolution? It is Darwin's idea of Natural Selection which is theory, not evolution itself.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245409 - 01/16/04 01:19 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2245413 - 01/16/04 01:20 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

However I do have an incontrovertible argument for a young earth and I will share it if anyone is interested.



Please do. I'd love to hear this.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2245414 - 01/16/04 01:22 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I have some answers for a variety of those questions but as I do not "debate" the theory of evolution I decline to answer any of them. It only leads to trouble

However I do have an incontrovertible argument for a young earth and I will share it if anyone is interested.




I understand your hesitance, it would probably be like arguing John Elway is a pussy in a bar in Denver.

I'm interested your arguement for a young earth however.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: silversoul7]
    #2245422 - 01/16/04 01:25 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 9 days, 10 hours
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245423 - 01/16/04 01:25 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Read http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/
Chapter:
How Old is the Earth?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 9 days, 10 hours
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245428 - 01/16/04 01:29 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245432 - 01/16/04 01:30 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2245435 - 01/16/04 01:33 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Ok, here goes:

How old is the Universe?

How old is the Earth according to evolutionists?

Therefore the earth is young relatively speaking.

It's a joke.

Sorry.





You're teasing me...out with the good stuff!!!


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: Anno]
    #2245436 - 01/16/04 01:33 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2245439 - 01/16/04 01:37 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Mr_Mushrooms said:
No, evolution is a theory, not a fact unless you are using a particular definition of "fact".  Jesus, I hate idiotic statements like that one.  :rolleyes:

What is a fact?



Ok, it is a fact in the sense that it is an observable phenomenon.  Maybe the creationists could be right about God creating the Earth with already aged fossils in order to test our faith, or maybe it's all just one big illusion, but as far as science is concerned it is a fact observed both in the fossil evidence and in laboratory settings.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245440 - 01/16/04 01:39 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245445 - 01/16/04 02:10 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

HAHA, funny stuff. really.
let me just address a few of them

Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, Earth's population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago, comparing very well with the number of people on Noah's Ark.

this is completely ridiculous. they fail to take into account recent advances in farming and medicine, and they assume that there is a steady (0.5%) growth rate

Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several "strata" of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them.30 At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.10

if this is true, so what? there have been massive floods in the past.

Laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. Modern laboratories can duplicate the formation of coal formation in a matter of days - or even hours. Furthermore, massive seams of coal in the Earth remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken.10

again. so what? they could create diamonds in a lab too. are these people seriously contending that because labs "can duplicate the formation of coal formation in a matter of days" that that's how it happened in real life??

It is well known that the interior of the Earth is very hot. For each mile you descend, the temperature increases by 118 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth is a thousand miles in diameter; the core is so hot that the rocks are molten. Yet as Earth passes through the extreme cold of outer space, it's losing its heat. Even with the heat it receives from the sun, Earth's net heat loss is 1027 calories per second. This means that if it started at 190 degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, Earth would have been frozen stone cold to the center in the first 40 million years. If it were four billion years old, it should have been a huge sphere of ice over 100 times by now.6

failed to account for the decay of radioactive elements in the earth's core
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030505/030505-5.html
these creation "scientists" are really working with outdated info

Earth's spin is slowing down at a rate of one third of a second every year. Extrapolating this back billions of years, we obtain an unreasonable spinning speed for the Earth.30

it's true the earth is slowing down, but there's a perfectly good explanation for it - it's a combination of conservation of angular momentum and a tidally locked moon. and they can't extrapolate back for billions of years, the current rate of slowing. :rolleyes:

Earth's magnetic field has been measured since 1835. It is growing weaker and the rate at which it is growing weaker has been calculated. If we extrapolate backwards, even to 20,000 BC, the magnetic field would have been so strong Earth would have been like a star and nothing could have lived here. Extrapolating further back, it would have been so strong it would have crushed the surface of the Earth in on itself.6

hint: extrapolating "back" with dynamic systems like the magnetic field is a bad idea

Evolutionists say that the magnetic field of the Earth has shifted from positive to negative at times - that's how it keeps going.

no. no scientist thinks this is why the magnetic field keeps going. see my first link.

But observations of the sun's magnetic field's changing from positive to negative show it loses more energy each time instead of gaining energy. Applying the same criteria to the magnetic field of the Earth, we see is that it drops the age of our planet to about six to eight thousand years.6

maybe we shouldn't "apply the same criteria" here because the sun and earth are physically different. ??

Like a giant vacuum cleaner, the sun sweeps up almost 100,000 tons of inflow per day. The sun's radiation pressure also pushes small, dust particles outward into space. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. If the solar system is really billions of years old, then the solar system should have been swept clean by now. Unfortunately for evolutionists, tons of space dust remain in our solar system.30

the solar system isn't a particularly dusty environment. there are some asteroids in stable orbits... but not too much dust. maybe they're talking about interstellar space? I don't know. btw, light can "pull" on an object - a phenomenon that was just recently confirmed by observation.

When spiral galaxies make one full turn they leave behind distinctive pairs of arms because the interior stars move around faster than the outer stars. These galaxies are supposed to make one full turn every hundred million years meaning they should have a pair of arms for every 100 million years. If the Earth is five billion years old, galaxies should have so many arms they couldn't be counted. But astronomers haven't been able to find a galaxy with more than three pairs of arms, meaning they haven't been able to find one that's even half a billion years old.6

this is an old misconception. spiral arms don't work that way, they are actually density waves
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr222/Galaxies/Spiral/spiral.html
this is what happens when you work with outdated information...

A star cluster contains hundreds or thousands of stars moving, as one author put it, "like a swarm of bees," held together by gravity. But in some clusters, the stars are moving so fast that they could not have held together for millions or billions of years. Star clusters tell us that the age of the universe should be measured in thousands of years.30

more incomplete/outdated data - many globular star clusters contain black holes at their center, which accounts for the longevity of the cluster (retention of member stars) as well as the speed of the stars in orbit.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/blackhole_cluster_020917.html

When big stars run out of fuel, they explode. Some of these "super nova remnants" are visible from the Earth. According to astronomical theory, in galaxies of our size, approximately 7,250 super nova remnants should be visible. Using the creationist age of the galaxy, we should expect to find between 125 and 200 super nova remnants. The actual number of super nova remnants visible from the Earth is 205, which is very close to the creationist numbers.30

no. not all supernova remnants would be visible from earth. the oldest ones would have long ago dissipated by now - it's heavy elements used in subsequent star formation. not to mention all the intervening dust and gas that blocks our view of most of our own galaxy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2245781 - 01/16/04 09:32 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

"The more I study, the more I find that evolutionists and creationists say the same things about each other."

Most biologists don't get hot and heavy in this debate. The problem with creationist "science" is that it blatantly ignores all kinds of data, or uses flimsy rationalizations to discard it. Sometimes, they can be quite creative, but often they make things up, or use facts that are blatantly wrong.

Do you think that a single flood could have carved the Grand Canyon out of granite?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2245792 - 01/16/04 09:35 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

"If evolutionists can botch biology as much as they do "

How much have they botched biology? Are you saying that you've got a better grasp on how life works and was formed on the planet than the scores of people who have devoted their lives to studying it?

(Remember, evolution in itself is not a field, geology and biology are, and both those fields offer evidence supporting evolution).


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: Phluck]
    #2245951 - 01/16/04 11:08 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Phluck said:
Do you think that a single flood could have carved the Grand Canyon out of granite?




Sounds more like the force of the current of a river constantly and slowly eroding the soil and rock it flows on for thousands and thousands of years, to me.  :lol:
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #2245971 - 01/16/04 11:17 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Yeah, that would make a whole lot more sense.

Not if you're trying to justify some crackpot theory though.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: Phluck]
    #2245986 - 01/16/04 11:23 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Phluck said:
Not if you're trying to justify some crackpot theory though.




Yeah, I hear that crackpot is known to cause ignorance and permanent seperation from reality when taken in large enough doses....  :spliff:

:lol:
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnom
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 9 months, 28 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2246030 - 01/16/04 11:39 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Fifty studies were reviewed that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools. The vast majority found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools. About 90% of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15% of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20% of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. Although the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling ?lite.










http://www.trueorigin.org/edupolls.asp <------- read more

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekaiowas
lest we baguette
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2246052 - 01/16/04 11:47 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

"? According to calculations by Bishop Usher in the early 1600s, the Earth is really only about 6,000 years old. Usher, a great scholar, knew when Nebuchadnezzar lived, and he worked his way backwards through the genealogies and came up with a creation date of 4004 BC. Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould stated that if Bishop Usher was right about the Bible being true, then the date would be correct.6 "

hahahaha ok so what about dinosaur bones huh?? is that to test our "faith." like god is fuckin with our heads huh?

"I thought fossils were carbondated. Because carbon has a predictable half life, specimen dating can be extrapolated based on the amount of carbon in a specimen."

if the fossil is preserved then maybe. apparently to these people it isn't. this is psuedo-science I tell ya!!!


"The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which evolutionists date by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.63"

do they offer proof of this outlandish claim? heh how did the scientist know which measurements would agree with their chosen values?? lol most of the time in my experience, people in science take down a LOT of data, and only the idiots try to "make things fit" when you do that, htye really aren't understanding what it is they are trying to study. actually doing this eliminates the whole point of taking down data. makes sense?? no..well neither does this

"Naturalists choose an "index fossil," one that is in a certain layer and date it by when they think it evolved - not by Carbon-14 dating, nor potassium-argon, nor by uranium-lead dating. They date the fossil by when they think it evolved. Then they date the rock by the fossil, and then they prove evolution by the date on the rock. This is circular reasoning.6"

okay okay so there's a couple of things some should understand about carbon-dating. don't take mfor an expert, but here are some things to think about.

yes carbon dating is a theory. look here it's a pretty sweet site that mostly eliminates scientific jargo and gets down to what this method is really about.

"They cling to these assumptions even though there is a lot of scientific evidence for a young Earth."

this is what we cal loaded terminology. where's their evidence of youngearth if they claim this to be.


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: Annom]
    #2246219 - 01/16/04 01:41 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

from the scientific american article posted above:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegnrm23
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/29/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 5 months, 11 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2246227 - 01/16/04 01:46 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

a thousand people believing in a foolish thing
does not make it any less a foolish thing...


--------------------
old enough to know better
not old enough to care

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2246232 - 01/16/04 01:48 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

No, evolution is a theory, not a fact

domesticated plants and animals.
how did they come to be the way they are?

can animals change due to selection pressure?
(in this case suitability for human consumption)

suitability for survival and reproduction = selection pressure in nature

selection pressure + time = change
it's a no brainer, it's been demonstrated time and again.

if you have some evidence to the contrary, by all means, present it to us.

(and I'd love to hear this "incontrovertible argument for a young earth")
...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: gnrm23]
    #2246240 - 01/16/04 01:52 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

a thousand people believing in a foolish thing
does not make it any less a foolish thing...


I couldn't agree more. creationism is pretty foolish.

fortunately, the more educated you are, the less likely you are to believe such nonsense.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2246262 - 01/16/04 02:06 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: Annom]
    #2246270 - 01/16/04 02:11 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2246379 - 01/16/04 02:49 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

"Those statistics prove how good the public education system is at inculcating an idea. Beyond that they prove nothing. "

That's just one possible explanation, and not necessarily the right one. It could also be that we are more likely to choose an option with a better argument behind it when we've been educated on what constitutes good research.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekaiowas
lest we baguette
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2246382 - 01/16/04 02:51 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I don't even know if they prove that mr mushrooms :smile:


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2246388 - 01/16/04 02:54 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Hardy-Weinberg does not contradict evolution.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultrane..._Fails_to_Apply


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2246402 - 01/16/04 02:57 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

For example, in biology there is the Hardy-Weinberg Law, which states that, under certain conditions of stability both genetic and allelic frequencies remain constant from generation to generation in sexually reproducing populations. It is an axample of genetic homeostasis, exactly the opposite of evolution.

no. that doesn't really conflict with evolution, unless you completely misunderstood the law.
first of all it says "under certain conditions of stability", which would be an exception, in nature. for example, I don't think ants change much from generation to generation because there is no more selection pressure - they're perfectly happy and successful the way they are - there is stability, it's called genetic equilibrium. other animals, like sharks and crocodiles have remained unchanged for millions of years. this isn't exactly damning to evolution, as you seem to think. evolution doesn't say that all animals change all the time.

here's the full definition:

Hardy-Weinberg Law: A fundamental principle in population genetics stating that the genotype frequencies and gene frequencies of a large, randomly mating population remain constant provided immigration, mutation, and selection do not take place.

but when we do apply selection pressure, we see that there is change. this has been demonstrated repeatedly. have you ever been involved in botany? have you ever bred plants with certain traits? (like high alkaloid content). what you are doing is applying (an unnatural) selection pressure. and what resulted? GENETIC CHANGE.

now can this process be applied to nature? are there natural selection pressures out there?

here's a more comprehensive description of the The Hardy-Weinberg Law:
http://online.sfsu.edu/~biol240/Labs/lab_02HW/

now the important part:
"In nature, most populations do in fact exhibit changing allele and genotype frequencies, for the simple reason that in most natural populations factors such as those mentioned above are almost always at work. Of what possible use, then, is the Hardy-Weinberg Theorem, if it describes a situation that we almost never encounter in nature? The answer is that it provides a standard that we can use to assess the changes that we observe taking place in the genetic make-up of populations."

What is a fact?

according to the National Academy of Sciences:

theory:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

fact:
an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: Phluck]
    #2246406 - 01/16/04 02:58 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

oops you beat me to it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2246780 - 01/16/04 05:37 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Yep, but you covered it a whole lot better than I did.  :thumbup:


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejpod
Stranger

Registered: 10/14/03
Posts: 107
Loc: DeeSee
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2246796 - 01/16/04 05:43 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I will assume that most evolutionists here have abandoned traditional 'slow' natural selection due to fossil records. My question is this: Do you favor the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium or the Complex Adaptive Systems model, or possibly another theory, and what is your reasoning for supporting this particular model?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2247244 - 01/16/04 09:33 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: Phluck]
    #2247248 - 01/16/04 09:36 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePHARMAKOS
addict
Registered: 09/13/02
Posts: 573
Last seen: 19 years, 8 months
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2247273 - 01/16/04 09:54 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

"Gould stated that if Bishop Usher was right about the Bible being true, then the date would be correct." and so the discussion should end, for the whole argument comes down to an assertion made from the view of someone who was looking to validate a previous belief, not someone trying to determine weather said belief was worthy of belief in the first place. Imagine a man who believes in a book called 'why gravity is false' he finds a passage in the book that says 'god lives in the center of the earth and his love sucks us all towards him, making sure that no one floats off into space' then he takes this "knowledge" and claims that he can prove this by jumping into the air and then falling back down. THis he says is incontestable evidence that god is in the center of the earth "assuming that he was right about the bible (why gravity is false) being true"

why would you assume that? faith and science just dont mix
excuse my oversimplifications
the debate will rage on regardless

its all academic anyways, as the world came into existence at the second of my birth and shall cease to exist at the second of my death

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHanky
wiffle bat.
Male User Gallery
Registered: 08/30/03
Posts: 56,993
Loc: Great Southern Land.
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2247886 - 01/17/04 04:44 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several "strata" of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them.30 At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.10

this is just total crap.
i used to be involved in the collection and export of fossils and mineral specimens for the asian market.
we used to collect 'peanut wood' (see pic below) from the gascoyne area in western australia.
some of the specimens i've seen in this area are upto 15 feet in lengh,when we'd find them they might be laying exposed flat on the surface or buried at any angle,sometimes even with the thickest part of the fossilised log at the surface and the thin end buried!
the reason that they are found at allsorts of crazy angles is simple,they are not found at the exact location that they originaly grew in before they were buried and the timber was replaced with hard minerals.
nothing stays still on the surface of the earth,fossils are transported,buried,exposed etc by weathering forces ie.water,wind,temperature extreams etc.
another important thing to consider here is that the minerals that comprise peanut wood are relativly hard compared to the sediments they are found in(peanut wood will take a polish,where as the surounding sediments will crumble in your hands),so it's easy to concive how a hard fossilised log could easily seem to "grow" thru several layers of sedimentary strata.
also i have never heard of the "Katherine Hill Bay" location that they mention and despite serching thru my fossil/mineral location books and serching google,i can find no mention of this location anywhere.

peanut wood


--------------------
Coaster is an idiot...
[quote]Coaster said:
but i thnk everything thats pure is white?
[/quote]



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: jpod]
    #2248530 - 01/17/04 02:29 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

My question is this: Do you favor the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium or the Complex Adaptive Systems model, or possibly another theory, and what is your reasoning for supporting this particular model?

I don't favor one over the other as they're not mutually exclusive, and they're not competing theories. I think there are many processes at work. as far as the physical evidence is concerned, the evidence of mass extinctions seems to fit in with the idea of punctuated equilibrium - rapid speciation spurred by environmental factors, followed by periods of relative calm. there is also evidence of certain living things remaining unchanged for long periods of time which seems to support punctuated equilibrium. this makes sense because animals don't change for the sake of changing. evolution isn't goal oriented, it depends entirely on environmental factors; convergent evolution is a good example of that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2248534 - 01/17/04 02:32 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

:shake:

RCA. Where did I say that the Hardy-Weinberg law contradicts evolution?

that's some clumsy backpeddling.. you claimed that the Hardy-Weinberg law was an example of something that is the exact opposite of evolution.

2+2=?


It is an axample of genetic homeostasis, exactly the opposite of evolution.

incorrect on two counts:

1. the Hardy-Weinberg law is not an example of genetic homeostasis

read the definition of it to find out why

2. genetic homeostasis is not the opposite of evolution

do you know what genetic homeostasis is? you do not understand it if you think that it's the "exact opposite" of evolution. there have been many species of animals in evolutionary history that showed little change over the course of millions of years - this is not the opposite of evolution. you are drawing conclusions based on your own flawed definitions.


The fact is that evolution is a change in the allele frequencies over time. Genetic homeostasis is the opposite.

fact? what is a fact? :lol: no really, is this your definition of evolution? well that explains a few things. try again, this time go for an accurate definition and see if it conflicts with homeostasis.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2249047 - 01/17/04 05:27 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Arguements for a young earth. [Re: ]
    #2249350 - 01/17/04 09:11 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

ooh good one
/claps

is a personal attack the best you can do?


how typical of you

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Who wants a good arguement with a christian? cube talk 625 11 11/06/07 04:28 PM
by Sophistic Radiance
* Why evolution isn't a scientific theory.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
Mr. Mushrooms 13,870 267 04/20/09 03:22 PM
by zouden
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 8,959 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Im Back!!! and still convinced free will is an illusion ;)
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
ZenGecko 16,200 148 04/22/07 10:22 PM
by PhanTomCat
* Jesus was a liar, his parents were liars, and those who believe him defend him to protect trauma
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
xFrockx 3,057 87 09/08/11 09:38 AM
by xFrockx
* I want to debate a "creation scientist".
( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )
Phluck 16,421 232 12/01/04 04:26 PM
by Diploid
* creation science
( 1 2 3 all )
fearfect 2,383 45 05/02/06 11:53 PM
by fearfect
* DNA - Further Proof against Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
rizingfire 7,883 85 12/13/09 11:25 AM
by EntheogenicPeace

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,794 topic views. 0 members, 12 guests and 40 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.