Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[pat34lee]

I don't believe in a god that implants fossils and age or rocks and strata that are millions and billions of years old, but are only 6,000 years old, has Noah building an Ark in New Jersey, and then removing all the flood water to Neptune, etc., etc., etc. I want no part of any such god.

How does a million or billion year old rock look different than a six thousand year old rock? It doesn't look any different.

People fool themselves into 'the earth looks old' because they have no idea what an old earth would look like. Why are mountains young, the sea floors young, and all the sedimentary rock is just now washing away all over the world, leaving sink holes? Even with fossils forming rarely, we should be up to our ears in them if the world was just one million years old. Once they get the genetic mutation clock corrected, they will find out that no creature could survive more than tens of thousands of years before the accumulation of defects kills them.

 

[lasthero]

How does a million or billion year old rock look different than a six thousand year old rock? It doesn't look any different.

People fool themselves into 'the earth looks old' because they have no idea what an old earth would look like.

So, Rick, who's studied this his entire life, is ignorant on this, but you, who has no formal training the field, know things that he does not?

Why are mountains young,

They're not.

the sea floors young,

They're not.

and all the sedimentary rock is just now washing away all over the world, leaving sink holes?

A reference would be nice.

Even with fossils forming rarely, we should be up to our ears in them if the world was just one million years old.

Millions of fossils have been found, and we can't look for fossils everywhere. It's not like we have some magical fossil detector that locates them. Do you even know how they find them in the first place? Do you think they just pick a random spot and start digging?

Once they get the genetic mutation clock corrected,

What is a 'genetic mutation clock'?

they will find out that no creature could survive more than tens of thousands of years before the accumulation of defects kills them.

And you no doubt base this on your extensive research in the field, I'm sure.

 

[Jan Volkes]

error

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder who originated the circular reasoning fallacy, Hovind?

Possibly. Any "professional" creationst has been corrected so many times that they have to know that it is a lie when they say that by now. What they don't understand is that various index fossils have been bracketed with maximum and minimum ages around the globe that we can now date layers by the fossils. Ultimately it all goes back to radiometric dating, but with a very very shallow view it seems like the creationists may have a point. Of course if you do more than just scratch the surface the errors of the creationists becomes obvious.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Possibly. Any "professional" creationst has been corrected so many times that they have to know that it is a lie when they say that by now. What they don't understand is that various index fossils have been bracketed with maximum and minimum ages around the globe that we can now date layers by the fossils. Ultimately it all goes back to radiometric dating, but with a very very shallow view it seems like the creationists may have a point. Of course if you do more than just scratch the surface the errors of the creationists becomes obvious.

Creationism has nothing to do with reality or truth it's all about how people feel, professional creationists are there to make people feel good and if people feel good [even if the message is complete rubbish] they will give their money to that person,
if you go to a quack doctor and you come out feeling good you think it's money well spent, creationism is no different to that,
they are paying to hear what they want to hear, if they don't hear it there they will go where they can hear it.

All religions are about peace of mind, if this one doesn't give it to you another one will, children are indoctrinated because they are loved, it may not be good but it is the truth.

 

[RickG]

How does a million or billion year old rock look different than a six thousand year old rock? It doesn't look any different.

Yes, they can look the same but they are not. It is a direct measurement called radiometric dating which measures the ratios of specific radionuclides that decay at specific constant rates. It's straight forward chemistry.

 

[RickG]

They all know it too. They just connect the dots using imagination and pixie dust.

pat34lee, Creation Science is not, as is claimed, a different interpretation with the same evidence. It is open and overt deliberate misrepresentation of science. Out right dishonesty.

What we see in the creation science literature are quote mines misrepresenting what a person actually says or believes. This can only be done with deliberate intentions. That is extremely dishonest. We see descriptions of dating methods that are nothing at all like the actual dating method works. That is extremely dishonest. We see creationists claiming the geologic column doesn't exist, when in reality it is seen complete in 25 different locations around the world. Saying it doesn't exist is an outright lie. Creation science says dating geologic strata is circular reasoning because the fossils date the strata therefore the strata dates the fossils. That is an outright lie. Geologic strata is radiometrically dated. The age of the fossils in that strata are known because of the radiometric data obtained, not by making up a date which is dishonestly asserted.

Frankly, if that is the focus of Christianity, I want no part of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, Rick, who's studied this his entire life, is ignorant on this, but you, who has no formal training the field, know things that he does not?

Were the Pharisees, who studied the Law all their lives and knew every jot & tittle of it, including the traditions of men, qualified to tell Jesus he was wrong?

 

[Jan Volkes]

Were the Pharisees, who studied the Law all their lives and knew every jot & tittle of it, including the traditions of men, qualified to tell Jesus he was wrong?

Of course they were, what was Jesus to them?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

It is as if these argument will never be settled; for example, the age of the universe, the same general theory of relativity is used by both sides; the only difference, the initial conditions or assumptions:

Big Bang Theory:
Universe size = infinite
Universe edge = does not exist
Universe center = does not exist
Time = all clocks run at the same rate
Age of the universe = The age of the farthest light we observe

White Hole Expansion:
Universe size = finite
Universe edge = there is an edge
Universe center = there is a center
Time = clocks runs at different rates depending on the effects of gravity.
Age of the universe = Youngest at the center, oldest at the edge.

See Dr. Russell Humphreys work; for example: Starlight and Time

This does not include the work by Stephen Meyer: SIGNATURE IN THE CELL

In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

I would argue that there are plenty of critical thinkers who take the Bible very seriously.

You can find of refutations for the work by these and other scientists; though, the real issue is both sides believe what they are saying and have the credentials to back it up. What is really happening here is people are taking the same data and interpreting it differently, both groups are critical thinkers.

Some people say Christians will not change their mind based on the evidence; though, that door swings both ways.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course they were, what was Jesus to them?

A deceiver.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some people say Christians will not change their mind based on the evidence; though, that door swings both ways.

Scientists prefer to use the definition of faith written, no less, by a man who was famos for writing fiction (Samuel Clemens).

He even faked his name (Mark Twain).

Scientists therefore think we Christians believe things, knowing they aren't true.

In the few cases where a scientist is a born-again follower of Jesus Christ ... but a scientist nonetheless ... he will still use that definition on those who don't follow the scientific method as he does.

Samuel Clemens' definition of faith, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so," is an affront to those who were martyred for Jesus Christ.

 

[Jan Volkes]

A deceiver.

If Jesus walked into your town what would you think he was?

 

[RickG]

Were the Pharisees, who studied the Law all their lives and knew every jot & tittle of it, including the traditions of men, qualified to tell Jesus he was wrong?

Get off the apologetics. Wrong is wrong, and this thread is about science, not Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

If Jesus walked into your town what would you think he was?

An antichrist.

Mark 13:21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:

 

[justlookinla]

If Jesus walked into your town what would you think he was?

Apologetics. You keep trying.

 

[Loudmouth]

The link you provide could be renamed "quote mine city". Never mind all the other misrepresentations concerning index fossils. Wowzerrssssss!

That was written in 1977, so quote mines were much more effective then. The interwebs have done much to pull the curtain on creationist tactics.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is as if these argument will never be settled; for example, the age of the universe, the same general theory of relativity is used by both sides; the only difference, the initial conditions or assumptions:

Those aren't assumed. We use observations to determine what the initial conditions were.

See Dr. Russell Humphreys work; for example: Starlight and Time

Humphrey's model predicts that we should see a blueshift in distant galaxies. We observe just the opposite, a redshift.

This does not include the work by Stephen Meyer: SIGNATURE IN THE CELL

In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

Real scientific work is found in the peer reviewed journals, and it needs to be original work.

I would argue that there are plenty of critical thinkers who take the Bible very seriously.

There are plenty of Christians who take the Bible very seriously and still accept evolution and standard scientific theories.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show

However, some skepticism about their conclusion remained for a decade after that,22 despite Tifft’s steady stream of peer-reviewed publications closing up the loopholes in his case.23 Then in 1997, an independent study of 250 galaxy redshifts by William Napier and Bruce Guthrie confirmed Tifft’s basic observations, saying,

‘ … the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artefacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques. Two galactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ~ 71.5 km s-1 in the Virgo cluster, and ~ 37.5 km s-1 for all other spiral galaxies within ~ 2600 km s-1 [roughly 100 million light years]. The formal confidence levels associated with these results are extremely high.’​

​

 

[justlookinla]

There are plenty of Christians who take the Bible very seriously and still accept evolution and standard scientific theories.

Christians who take the bible seriously reject the views of Godless Darwinist evolution guesses and suppositions, i.e., that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago.

There are many versions of evolution.