Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Job 33:6]

I dont disagree.

It sounds like you do. It sounds like you think there should be no continents in existence. Yet simultaneously you admit that there should always be continents in existence because theyre always being pushed up and around by one another.

Many continents even consist of marine rock that has been uplifted above sea level. Like the white cliffs of dover. Just because something like cenozoic rock might be eroded away in one area, doesnt mean that older rocks still cant push up into the atmosphere.

The west coast of north america was below sea level as well, and was all uplifted. Much of the cenozoic rock has been eroded away, though of course plenty still remains. But beyond that, the mass is predominantly older, rock that at times have been submerged.

So there is no shortage in supply of rock to fuel mountain building. And there is no shortage of rock that may be uplifted above sea level.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

catholic creationist

http://kolbecenter.org/
http://www.daylightorigins.com/
https://www.facebook.com/scienceandcatholicism/


Jewish

see messianic jews, all the ones i have encounter have been some form of creationist.
http://www.chavurahshalom.org/
tovia singer the top jewish apologist
https://outreachjudaism.org/

Muslim

Turkey has the largest % population of yec a muslim nation.
http://tubav.org.tr/

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

It sounds like you do. It sounds like you think there should be no continents in existence. Yet simultaneously you admit that there should always be continents in existence because theyre always being pushed up and around by one another.

Many continents even consist of marine rock that has been uplifted above sea level. Like the white cliffs of dover. Just because something like cenozoic rock might be eroded away in one area, doesnt mean that older rocks still cant push up into the atmosphere.

The west coast of north america was below sea level as well, and was all uplifted. Much of the cenozoic rock has been eroded away, though of course plenty still remains. But beyond that, the mass is predominantly older, rock that at times have been submerged.

So there is no shortage in supply of rock to fuel mountain building. And there is no shortage of rock that may be uplifted above sea level.

I am not sure what is difficult. There would always be some [especially smaller island size] above water land. However the supposed length of time some of the older ages given to layers by evolutionist that are above water contradicts erosion rates. The land that would be above water assuming an old earth, would all be newer "young" layers.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am not sure what is difficult. There would always be some [especially smaller island size] above water land. However the supposed length of time some of the older ages given to layers by evolutionist that are above water contradicts erosion rates. The land that would be above water assuming an old earth, would all be newer "young" layers.

Much of the rock that makes up older mountains are durable dense metamorphic rock, like quartzite, which are highly resistant to erosion. In addition to this, many rocks that are uplifted, originate from below the sea where in actuality they accumulate in mass, rather than being eroded away, as you seem to believe.

I go back to my cliffs of dover example. The rocks it is made out of are mesozoic, over 250 million years old. But they came from the sea where historically they did not undergo erosion, rather they spent many millions of years forming via deposition.

You have to take into account the fact that deposition occurs, and many mountains are made of rocks that formed by deposition.

So yes the cliffs of dover are 250 million years old, but that doesnt mean that they were eroding that entire 250 million years. Most of those years were spent growing via accumulated deposition.

 

[Job 33:6]

The same goes for the western portion of the north american continent. Much of the west is made of mesozoic rock, over 250 million years old. But the heavy erosion by rivers didnt begin until perhaps 50 million years ago with its uplift. So you have ancient rock that is lifted and exposed And it hasnt had time to erode away. (Though the canyon is considered far younger, at less than 10 million)

 

[Job 33:6]

You also often get bedding tilted on its side. In the above image, you have very ancient rocks exposed. But they probably spent most of their lives deep underground, where they wouldnt erode because theyre underground. But then theyre folded up and uplifted, and all of a sudden theyre exposed.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RPgUOqqHQ...ipK4o/s1600/cross+section+Kumaon+Himalaya.jpg

 

[Job 33:6]

Much of the himilayas also contain ophiolites

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...area-and-location-of-Paleogene_fig1_281855129

And if you dont know what ophiolites are, look it up. Theyre a combination of ultramafics, pillobasalts and siliceous deposits like radiolaria and diatoms.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...3hKC97S611OCVgtwhqF4uZa3Ztaytcjmk_zv9zWiObT8g

Which are actually marine/continental margin/magmatic originating features.

The himilayas werent always exosed and eroding. They were built by volcanic activitiy, just like other volcanic landforms, and then they were just recently pushed up into the atmosphere.

And Ill tell you right now, theres no way this could be explained to have occurred in anything less than millions of years if you actually understand what I am trying to explain here in this post.

 

[Jimmy D]

“Even if all of the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. “ -Todd, S. C. 1999. A view from Kansas on that evolution debate. Nature. 401 (6752): 423.

He's right there, science doesn't deal with the supernatural. So what?

(EDIT: No data points to a designer BTW)

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Again, so what? Science deals with the natural world.

“At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” -Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer. See refutation of his Washington Post article attacking creation.

What?!?! Scientists aren't perfect!!?!

Tell me, who is sequencing the human genome in an attempt to treat diseases like cancer, diabetes etc?

Who is doing stem cell research to give us greater access to organs for transplants?

Who has developed anti-viral therapies helping HIV patients live longer?

Who discovered water on Mars?

Who finds deposits of fossil fuels?

Who discovered evidence of plate tectonics?

At least science helps us to understand the world around us and provides tangible results that can make countless lives better. Contrast that with "creation science" which is satisfied with whining and taking pathetic, failed swipes against mainstream science. If "creation science" ceased to exist today the only difference it would make to our lives is that there would be less inaccurate and dishonest websites for the likes of you to plagiarize.

‘Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’ Professor -Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Who or what is Richards talking about specifically?

“evolutionist reject as a matter of printable not because of evidence “
-F.M harold 2001 the way of the cell molecules organisms and the order of life oxford university press new york new york

That doesn't even makes sense. Reject what? It's meaningless with out context.

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It inset just that I dont believe in god and naturally, hope there is no god, I dont want there to be a god, I dont wont the universe to be like that.
-Philosopher Thomas nagel the last word,oxford university press new york 1997 p 30

What's that got to do with geology or biology? Who cares about Nagel's religious views? They're totally irrelevant to your "arguments".

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
-Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph,

He's welcome to his opinion. Have you read his article? (I should imagine that you've just plagiarized the quote from a creationist website, it's quite pathetic really).

He finishes the article....

"What is the moral to be drawn from all of this? You might think that the time has come to save evolution from the evolutionists.

Darwinism is a terrific theory that stimulates research in every area of the life sciences. In the human realm, for instance, discoveries in Africa trace our immediate past in ever greater detail, while at the same time the Human Genome Project opens up fascinating evolutionary questions as we learn of the molecular similarities between ourselves and organisms as apparently different as fruit flies and earthworms. Surely this is enough.

There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed."

Pretty much the opposite of your view is it not? Do you still value his opinion?

“I suppose the reason we why we lept at the orgin of species was that the idea of god interfered with our sexual mores-
-sir julien Huxley

Source? After that last one I'm starting to doubt how representative of the authors views some of these "quotes" are.

I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
-Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff.

So what, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

"evolution is a anti-scientific fable intended to avoid accountability to god"
-2011 Dr David stone laser physicists with 5 degrees including PHD in mechanical endangering from Michigan state U creation mag 34 [1] 2012

Creationist engineer expresses negative opinion about mainstream biology. Shock horror!

It's also complete crap, and probably offensive to many Christian biologists.

“Evolution can better be understood as the pseudo-scientific justification for a life lived without accountability to ones maker.”
-John D Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017

Ditto.

“Our theories are more statements about us and our ideology than about the past. Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is Hersey”
-Piloeans review of Leakey's origins in American Statistic may-june 1978

These quotes are getting more meaningless as we proceed.

But again, so what? Maybe "Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about." That doesn't make it wrong.

“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge

Irrelevant. He's not talking about biology or geology, it seems that you are getting desperate.

The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017

Because science deals with the natural world, derp. What's "creation thinking" ever achieved?

“Simply put most people believe in evolution because most people believe in evolution. It is all they have ever been taught. If creation is ever mentioned it is ridiculed and unfairly catheterized, thus, evolution is assumed, not proved and creation is denied, not refuted”
-John Morris The Young earth

Creationist engineer expresses negative opinion about mainstream biology. Shock horror!

So what?

“Absolute stranglehold materialistic atheism has on every thought that is allowed to be considered in the scientific and educational realms. This makes the American classroom one of the most censored, thought-controlled locations on the planet.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

LOL, hyperbole much?

“the idea of a cooly rational scientific observer, completely independent free of all preconceived theories prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments doing investigations and coming to dispassionate unbias conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science and indeed most scientist as a simplistic myth”
-professor John Lennox, fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university

He's correct, no one is "completely independent free of all preconceived theories prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments" but again, so what?

It doesn't make established science wrong.

“The stereotype of a rational and objective scientific method and individual scientist as logical and interchangeable robots is self-serving mythology”
- evolutionist Stepehn j Gould in the mind of the beholder natural history 103 feb 1994

Ditto.

..............................................

All you've done with these quotes is demonstrate the shallow and desperate tactics the creationist will sink to to try and validate his viewpoint. Some misrepresent the authors viewpoint, some are from unverifiable sources, most are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

NONE of them provide any meaningful insight and more importantly offer NONE offer any challenge to the results of mainstream science.

It is obvious that they are merely pagiarized from some creationist website and you have read NON of the source material.

E- Must try harder

 

[pitabread]

<snip giant list of random quotes>

I asked for examples of non-Protestant Christians who are young-Earthers. Not sure why you responded with a bunch of quote-spam.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Much of the himilayas also contain ophiolites

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...area-and-location-of-Paleogene_fig1_281855129

And if you dont know what ophiolites are, look it up. Theyre a combination of ultramafics, pillobasalts and siliceous deposits like radiolaria and diatoms.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...3hKC97S611OCVgtwhqF4uZa3Ztaytcjmk_zv9zWiObT8g

Which are actually marine/continental margin/magmatic originating features.

The himilayas werent always exosed and eroding. They were built by volcanic activitiy, just like other volcanic landforms, and then they were just recently pushed up into the atmosphere.

And Ill tell you right now, theres no way this could be explained to have occurred in anything less than millions of years if you actually understand what I am trying to explain here in this post.

Much of the rock that makes up older mountains are durable dense metamorphic rock, like quartzite, which are highly resistant to erosion. In addition to this, many rocks that are uplifted, originate from below the sea where in actuality they accumulate in mass, rather than being eroded away, as you seem to believe.

I go back to my cliffs of dover example. The rocks it is made out of are mesozoic, over 250 million years old. But they came from the sea where historically they did not undergo erosion, rather they spent many millions of years forming via deposition.

You have to take into account the fact that deposition occurs, and many mountains are made of rocks that formed by deposition.

So yes the cliffs of dover are 250 million years old, but that doesnt mean that they were eroding that entire 250 million years. Most of those years were spent growing via accumulated deposition.

The same goes for the western portion of the north american continent. Much of the west is made of mesozoic rock, over 250 million years old. But the heavy erosion by rivers didnt begin until perhaps 50 million years ago with its uplift. So you have ancient rock that is lifted and exposed And it hasnt had time to erode away. (Though the canyon is considered far younger, at less than 10 million)

You also often get bedding tilted on its side. In the above image, you have very ancient rocks exposed. But they probably spent most of their lives deep underground, where they wouldnt erode because theyre underground. But then theyre folded up and uplifted, and all of a sudden theyre exposed.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RPgUOqqHQ...ipK4o/s1600/cross+section+Kumaon+Himalaya.jpg

[/QUOTE]

Much of the rock that makes up older mountains are durable dense metamorphic rock, like quartzite, which are highly resistant to erosion. In addition to this, many rocks that are uplifted, originate from below the sea where in actuality they accumulate in mass, rather than being eroded away, as you seem to believe.

I go back to my cliffs of dover example. The rocks it is made out of are mesozoic, over 250 million years old. But they came from the sea where historically they did not undergo erosion, rather they spent many millions of years forming via deposition.

You have to take into account the fact that deposition occurs, and many mountains are made of rocks that formed by deposition.

So yes the cliffs of dover are 250 million years old, but that doesnt mean that they were eroding that entire 250 million years. Most of those years were spent growing via accumulated deposition.

The same goes for the western portion of the north american continent. Much of the west is made of mesozoic rock, over 250 million years old. But the heavy erosion by rivers didnt begin until perhaps 50 million years ago with its uplift. So you have ancient rock that is lifted and exposed And it hasnt had time to erode away. (Though the canyon is considered far younger, at less than 10 million)

You also often get bedding tilted on its side. In the above image, you have very ancient rocks exposed. But they probably spent most of their lives deep underground, where they wouldnt erode because theyre underground. But then theyre folded up and uplifted, and all of a sudden theyre exposed.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RPgUOqqHQ...ipK4o/s1600/cross+section+Kumaon+Himalaya.jpg

I muti quoted to keep all your stuff together. Than all that would be left is quartzite, this is not the case neither is quartzite complete resistant to erosion.

Of course the sedimentary rock formed under water during depositions argument applies to above water land surfaces. You seem to be proving that their would be some above land surfaces at various times even if an old earth, ok. I am saying the above land masses as we see today prove they have not been around as long as evolutionist claim, thus a young earth. The fact is evolutionist claim that much of the continents formed billions of years ago and have been uplifted hundreds of millions and even billions of years ago does not hold up to erosion. North america would have eroded in 10 million years alone. Are you trying to suggest the north american Continent has been above water for less than 10 million years? if so you seem to be a cpt creationist almost.

Further what of flat surfaces such as Kangaroo Island 160 million years old The land is the same as when it was uplifted How could it stay so flat for so long without being eroded by 160 million years of rain?

And where do we see great layers of fossilized sediment forming in the ocean bottom today? where are the great graveyards and layers to be uplifted? to replace those on the continents? further the replacement observed would only leave "young" rock with no fossils, not what we observe on the continents. They would also face erosion once uplifted. Add to that the missing mud and it shows this process has not been going on as long as claimed.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

I asked for examples of non-Protestant Christians who are young-Earthers. Not sure why you responded with a bunch of quote-spam.

post 61.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

He's right there, science doesn't deal with the supernatural. So what?

(EDIT: No data points to a designer BTW)



Again, so what? Science deals with the natural world.



What?!?! Scientists aren't perfect!!?!

Tell me, who is sequencing the human genome in an attempt to treat diseases like cancer, diabetes etc?

Who is doing stem cell research to give us greater access to organs for transplants?

Who has developed anti-viral therapies helping HIV patients live longer?

Who discovered water on Mars?

Who finds deposits of fossil fuels?

Who discovered evidence of plate tectonics?

At least science helps us to understand the world around us and provides tangible results that can make countless lives better. Contrast that with "creation science" which is satisfied with whining and taking pathetic, failed swipes against mainstream science. If "creation science" ceased to exist today the only difference it would make to our lives is that there would be less inaccurate and dishonest websites for the likes of you to plagiarize.



Who or what is Richards talking about specifically?



That doesn't even makes sense. Reject what? It's meaningless with out context.



What's that got to do with geology or biology? Who cares about Nagel's religious views? They're totally irrelevant to your "arguments".



He's welcome to his opinion. Have you read his article? (I should imagine that you've just plagiarized the quote from a creationist website, it's quite pathetic really).

He finishes the article....

"What is the moral to be drawn from all of this? You might think that the time has come to save evolution from the evolutionists.

Darwinism is a terrific theory that stimulates research in every area of the life sciences. In the human realm, for instance, discoveries in Africa trace our immediate past in ever greater detail, while at the same time the Human Genome Project opens up fascinating evolutionary questions as we learn of the molecular similarities between ourselves and organisms as apparently different as fruit flies and earthworms. Surely this is enough.

There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed."

Pretty much the opposite of your view is it not? Do you still value his opinion?



Source? After that last one I'm starting to doubt how representative of the authors views some of these "quotes" are.



So what, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.



Creationist engineer expresses negative opinion about mainstream biology. Shock horror!

It's also complete crap, and probably offensive to many Christian biologists.



Ditto.



These quotes are getting more meaningless as we proceed.

But again, so what? Maybe "Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about." That doesn't make it wrong.



Irrelevant. He's not talking about biology or geology, it seems that you are getting desperate.



Because science deals with the natural world, derp. What's "creation thinking" ever achieved?



Creationist engineer expresses negative opinion about mainstream biology. Shock horror!

So what?




LOL, hyperbole much?




He's correct, no one is "completely independent free of all preconceived theories prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments" but again, so what?

It doesn't make established science wrong.



Ditto.

..............................................

All you've done with these quotes is demonstrate the shallow and desperate tactics the creationist will sink to to try and validate his viewpoint. Some misrepresent the authors viewpoint, some are from unverifiable sources, most are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

NONE of them provide any meaningful insight and more importantly offer NONE offer any challenge to the results of mainstream science.

It is obvious that they are merely pagiarized from some creationist website and you have read NON of the source material.

E- Must try harder

“A real scientist is searching for truth about nature and not materialistic explanations “
-enzyme expert Dr matti Leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature

“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011




Definition of science
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

• thescience of theology

b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

• have it down to a science

3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

• cooking is both a science and an art

Now what secular, humanist, atheist and materialist have done is try and turn science and knowledge gained from observation/demonstration into their own religious beliefs of materialism and secularism.


You have claimed that no evidence points to a designer, I hope you stay around for future threads my freind.


No, evolutionist reject creation out of their religious worldview, not out of evidence.


You have missed the quote. Science is great, its how we can know evolution is not true. Plus science only makes sense in a biblical worldview that is why science was started by Christians. The quote is saying all humans are bias, including evolutionist.



Paradigms.



evolutionist reject before hand the idea of creation.



Agreed. But it shows a strong bias to want evolution to be true, its not hard to convince yourself if you want it to be true.

“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
-Malcolm Maggeridge

“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge





How does that not fit perfect with what i have said and qouted and my enitre post?



source
https://books.google.com/books?id=z... our sexual mores- -sir julien Huxley&f=false



Evolutionist have heavy bias. Thus creationist offer the only critical look at evolution.




They all point to what this post was about, bias from evolutionist.




Humans are humans no matter scientist or not.



Once more science is science, keep your religion out of it.


It has started science, that is what creation has done.





I think you misunderstood a post that was meant to show bias in evolutionist showing creationist are important and the only ones that provide skepticism of evolution. Stay around for future threads for the rest.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

sorry

 

[Jimmy D]

“A real scientist is searching for truth about nature and not materialistic explanations “
-enzyme expert Dr matti Leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature

“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011




Definition of science
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

• thescience of theology

b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

• have it down to a science

3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

• cooking is both a science and an art

Now what secular, humanist, atheist and materialist have done is try and turn science and knowledge gained from observation/demonstration into their own religious beliefs of materialism and secularism.


You have claimed that no evidence points to a designer, I hope you stay around for future threads my freind.


No, evolutionist reject creation out of their religious worldview, not out of evidence.


You have missed the quote. Science is great, its how we can know evolution is not true. Plus science only makes sense in a biblical worldview that is why science was started by Christians. The quote is saying all humans are bias, including evolutionist.



Paradigms.



evolutionist reject before hand the idea of creation.



Agreed. But it shows a strong bias to want evolution to be true, its not hard to convince yourself if you want it to be true.

“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
-Malcolm Maggeridge

“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge





How does that not fit perfect with what i have said and qouted and my enitre post?



source
https://books.google.com/books?id=ztBgCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT38&lpg=PT38&dq=“I+suppose+the+reason+we+why+we+kept+at+the+origin+of+species+was+that+the+idea+of+god+interfered+with+our+sexual+mores-+-sir+julien+Huxley&source=bl&ots=Zb0J9PTcvZ&sig=fP9Uf5sSg2Rt_f8J6oz7rknzdbU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV9KOx7rfcAhVGm-AKHUURDREQ6AEINzAC#v=onepage&q=“I suppose the reason we why we kept at the origin of species was that the idea of god interfered with our sexual mores- -sir julien Huxley&f=false



Evolutionist have heavy bias. Thus creationist offer the only critical look at evolution.




They all point to what this post was about, bias from evolutionist.




Humans are humans no matter scientist or not.



Once more science is science, keep your religion out of it.


It has started science, that is what creation has done.





I think you misunderstood a post that was meant to show bias in evolutionist showing creationist are important and the only ones that provide skepticism of evolution. Stay around for future threads for the rest.

Sorry Tolkien, I can't really respond to that, you really need to sort your quoting out.

If you just highlight a specific part of my post that you want to quote a "+quote" button will pop up which you can click.

If you then go down to field at the bottom of the page and click the red "insert quotes" button you'll be good to go!

Hope this helps.

 

[Job 33:6]

I muti quoted to keep all your stuff together. Than all that would be left is quartzite, this is not the case neither is quartzite complete resistant to erosion.

Of course the sedimentary rock formed under water during depositions argument applies to above water land surfaces. You seem to be proving that their would be some above land surfaces at various times even if an old earth, ok. I am saying the above land masses as we see today prove they have not been around as long as evolutionist claim, thus a young earth. The fact is evolutionist claim that much of the continents formed billions of years ago and have been uplifted hundreds of millions and even billions of years ago does not hold up to erosion. North america would have eroded in 10 million years alone. Are you trying to suggest the north american Continent has been above water for less than 10 million years? if so you seem to be a cpt creationist almost.

Further what of flat surfaces such as Kangaroo Island 160 million years old The land is the same as when it was uplifted How could it stay so flat for so long without being eroded by 160 million years of rain?

And where do we see great layers of fossilized sediment forming in the ocean bottom today? where are the great graveyards and layers to be uplifted? to replace those on the continents? further the replacement observed would only leave "young" rock with no fossils, not what we observe on the continents. They would also face erosion once uplifted. Add to that the missing mud and it shows this process has not been going on as long as claimed.

Actually on many peaks, all that is left, is quartzite capping mountain ranges. This is accurate in many mountains here on the east coast of the US.

"Of course the sedimentary rock formed under water during depositions argument applies to above water land surfaces."

And regarding this ^, it does apply, because many of the above ground mountain ranges originated as underwater depositional environments.

Lets look at your claim in a mathematical sense. You said that north america would have eroded in 10 million years. Now how did you come to this conclusion?

You mentioned before, tons of sediment being washed out from the himilayas. But there is no shortage of sediment to be eroded as the entire indian subcontinent is contributing to what may be eroded. And of course the entire Indian subcontinent is contains far more mass than that which is eroded.

 

[Jimmy D]

I think you misunderstood a post that was meant to show bias in evolutionist showing creationist are important and the only ones that provide skepticism of evolution. Stay around for future threads for the rest.

I am aware of that...and there is a consensus on the validity of the Theory of Evolution for a very good reason.... mountains of evidence from genetics, the fossil record, biogeography, anatomy etc etc etc.

The only reason it is being questioned is because it threatens religious convictions of fundamentalist religious types.

Do you think that the Flat Earth Society members who "provide skepticism" of a spherical Earth are important too? I doubt it, Do you think that climatologists or geologists show "bias" when they assume a spherical Earth in their studies?

Of course not.

And please stop trying to make it into a theist Vs atheist issue, that's utter nonsense, as the many Christians who frequent these boards and accept evolution and an old Earth will tell you.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is some quick and dirty math for this whole erosion topic.

The western united states is roughly 7 million feet wide and 7 million feet tall. Bedrock extends some 16 thousand feet below grade.

Thats 7 million * 7 million * 16 thousand feet to give us roughly 8*10^17 power cubic feet of rock.

How much sediment is deposited to the calorado river delta? 150
https://www.geo.arizona.edu/ceam/Hecold/hecolcd.htm
160 million metric tons per year. which is 2205 ibs * 160 million = 3.52*10^11 pounds.

How many pounds is 8*10^17 cubic feet of granite? Well granite is about 175 pounds per cubic feet, so thats 8*10^17 * 175 which is 1400*10^17 pounds.

So, if we took 1400*10^17 pounds and divided it by the annual deposition of 3.52*10^11 pounds, we would get...

1.4*10^20/3.52*10^11=

400,000,000 years.

This is some pretty rough math, but the pount is that, the total continental land mass present to be eroded, grossly outweights the amount of sediment being eroded by several orders of magnitude. And someone would have to be a doop-dee-doop to think otherwise.

Even if we had 4 Colorado rivers concentrated in just the western half of the US, we would still have 100 million years of rock to erode.

Of course there is only 1 calorado river, and the uplift from the laramide orogeny only occurred in the past 50 million years with the erosion of the grand canyon at less than 30 million. Erosion rates also are much less over rocks that are more dense than granite such as quartzite, and much of the western US isnt directly impacted by water, as most of it is well above the water table where it doesnt come in contact with running rivers at all.

This calculation also assumes that only paleozoic rock (and younger) is available for erosion. Hadean and Archaen rock in the western united states go down to the mantle of the earth and at a minimum another 50 thousand feet thick.

Which would drive our available mass up to 3 times longer than the calculation above, at about 1,200,000,000 years of erosion before they would just all wash away. And in many cases, deep ultramafic rock is brought up to grade by uplift or other mechanisms, just as deep ultramafic rock has been lifted up in the himilayas (they contain ophiolites).

 

[USincognito]

Can this guy stop copy and pasting giant walls of text? Post a link and an excerpt.

 

[Skreeper]

Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night, I can feel my leg… and my arm… even my fingers. The body I’ve lost… the comrades I’ve lost… won’t stop hurting… It’s like they’re all still there. You feel it, too, don’t you?

 

[USincognito]

Erosion Rates of Continents

Debunked.
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/continents.html

Levels of Salt in the Oceans

Debunked. And if the sources for the now 50 year old claims are to be taken at face value the amount of aluminum in the oceans means the earth is only 100 years old.
http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/aig/daily/2006/20060524_salt.htm

Galaxies Wind Themselves up too Fast

Debunked.
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2...alaxies-wind-up-too-fast-for-an-old-universe/

Ocean Floor Sediments

Debunked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html

Decay of Earths Magnetic Field

Debunked.
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/magnetic_field.html

Earth-Moon System

Debunked.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Recession_of_the_Moon

Comets Disintegrate too Quickly

Short period comets are generated as trans-Neptunian objects, centaurs and Kuiper belt objects. Long period comets come from the Oort Cloud.

Debunked.