Creation evidence?

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by Shimon
Anytime a discussion arises concerning "Evolution vs Creation" as to whether or not Creation should be taught in public schools, the term "Evolution" encompasses a broader definition than merely "Macro-evolution."  It also encompasses theories involving astronomy, geology, physics, etc.  If I present geologic evidence, you'll say "that's not evolution, that's geology."  If I present astronomical evidence, or evidence from physics, your reply will be the same: "that's not evolution."  But, in terms of Creation vs Evolution as taught in schools, "Evolution" does involve more than merely macro-evolution biology.  In this way, you create a moving target so that no matter WHAT evidence is provided, you can conveniently discard it.

Nonsense.  I defy you to produce one high-school textbook on evolution (or biology) that delves into astronomy, physics, geology, etc. 

Provide:

  • the full title of the text;
  • the year of publication, and
  • at least three places in the book where this is done. 

When you provide the three places in the book, make sure they are not just one-line comments either.  To satisfy your claim, you need to show that the textbook goes into detail and tries to teach astronomy, physics, or geology as a supporting pillar for evolution.

So, define the terms.  Before a debate on ANY subject can be held, the terms of the debate must be defined.

This isn't about defining terms.  This is about checking to see if you've made a totally bogus claim about how evolution is taught in high school.
 
Upvote 0
I will see what I can find out about this evidence. If granit e was formed instantly, that would support a creation model. If polonium haols without the parent isotope are found, that might support the contention that the granite was formed instantly. I will see what I can dig up about this.

A quick follow-up... I have done some digging, and I haven't found where any halos exist that can be identified with polonium decay with any degree of certainty. The best I could come up with were Gentry's claims. Those were based on sloppy methodology, as far as I can tell. If these are the halos you are talking about, we can discuss his methodology, and why it wasn't good enough to publish in a refereed journal. Let me know.

If you are not relying on Gentry's identification, and you want to use polonium halos as evidence for the instantaneous creation of granite, then you will have to show some documentation of where they exist, and how they demonstrate instant creation of granite...
 
Upvote 0
He's busy man, leave him alone. He is obviously out practicing growing his third set of teeth, stepping on trilobites, measuring the thickness of the geological column (and finding that only 16% of its thickness is found anywhere that the full column exists), and making transitional fossils disappear. He will come back and explain how the polystrate fossils, C14 in coal and Polonium halos all give good evidence of creation.

Edited to add: yes, and on one of those wild angiosperm chases. Apparantly, if we can't prove that there was no polyploidy in the history of angiosperms (or at least in their transitional stages), then they must have been specially created 6000 years ago... or some such.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Shimon
Anytime a discussion arises concerning "Evolution vs Creation" as to whether or not Creation should be taught in public schools, the term "Evolution" encompasses a broader definition than merely "Macro-evolution." It also encompasses theories involving astronomy, geology, physics, etc.
This is absolutely true!

It's called "diversion." Since there is no proof of "macro" and the evidence stinks, talk about the mineral composition of a rock or the atmosphere on Venus! Better yet, confuse the terms "macro" and "micro" and hope no one notices! Then insist that "micro" is proof of "macro!"

Of all their ridiculous claims, the "macro" claim of the evolution religionists is most hilarious, so it bears repeating, if only for a good laugh...

The evolution religionists claim our ancestor began life as humble bacterial sludge living in the ocean, which evolved into several transitional forms between the sludge and fish, which evolved into fish, which evolved into several transitional forms between fish and amphibians, which evolved into amphibians, which evolved into several transitional forms between amphibians and reptiles, which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into several transitional forms between reptiles and mammals, which evolved into rodents, which evolved into several transitional forms between rodents and primates, which evolved into primates, which evolved into several transitional forms between primates and humans, which evolved (finally) into humans!

Pretty funny, eh? The evolution religionists claim each stage lasted for "millions of years" with a funky line of creatures having fins, four-legs, webbed feat, and reptilian claws all existing on the HUMAN "evolutionary ladder!" Good grief the evolution religionists are a wacky lot.

What more can be said, except they're welcome to their religion and we're welcome to our faith.
 
Upvote 0
Okay, here's a few:

(1) The vast majority of books on dinosaurs are written from an evolutionary perspective which assumes that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. The leading model for the demise of the dinosaur involves a large asteroid hitting the earth. Yet the most obvious alternative explanation is almost always ignored. Almost all fossils are the remains of creatures buried by sediment filled water which has subsequently turned to rock. If this is due to a flood of worldwide extent, as the water rose to cover all land surfaces, animals would have been drowned, sank, and buried by massive amounts of rapidly accumulating sediment. It is not at all surprising to find a general lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping.

(2) Oil found in the ground is under a tremendous pressure – up to 20,000 pounds per square inch. Geologists claim that the rock can only hold that pressure for 10,000 years or less.

(3) Galaxies are groups of stars that are spinning. The stars near the center are spinning faster than the star on the outside. So, if the universe were “billions of years old,” the galaxies would not have spiral arms.

(4) Textbooks say that red stars slowly evolved into white dwarfs. They say it takes hundreds of thousands if not millions and billions of years for this to happen. And yet, all of the ancient astronomers described Sirius as a red star:

* Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. described Sirius as red.
* Cicero, in 50 B.C. stated Sirius was red.
* Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars.
* Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D.

But today, Sirius is a white dwarf. Textbooks say it should take at least 100,000 years for this to happen.

(5) Some of the planets are cooling off rapidly, they are losing heat. A planet cannot keep losing heat indefinitely.

(6) Saturn’s rings are unstable and are moving away from the planet – Saturn is losing its rings. If the universe is billions of year’s old, how can Saturn still have rings around it?
See “It’s a Young World After All” by Paul Ackerman, and “Also In The Beginning” by Walt Brown, p. 29.

(7) Why is Jupiter’s moon, Ganymede, still hot?
Jupiter’s moon, Ganymede, has a strong magnetic field. “Magnetic fields are generated by the liquid motion of molten metal inside a body. Yet, Ganymede should have cooled solid billions of years ago.” – Holt Earth Science, 1994, page 579.

(8) The moon is going around the earth. The moon revolves farther and farther away each year (just a few inches each year). The moon causes the ocean tides. If the earth was “billions and billions of years old,” the tides would have risen so high that they would have flooded the entire earth, twice a day.
-- Young Age for the Moon and Earth, by Dr Thomas G. Barnes. No 110 Impact, August 1992.

(9) Space is full of dust. Lots of scratches on space shuttle windows from space dust. Scientists concluded that the moon collects 1 inch of dust every 10,000 years. Lyttleton felt that x-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rock “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.”
-- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol 115, 1955, pp. 585-604.

Because of the expected amount of moondust, NASA scientists feared that the Lunar Lander would sink out of sight into the moon dust.

“I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.”
-- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, Jan. 1959 p. 36.

Since the expected amount of dust was not present (the moon-dust was only a half-inch deep), they left sensors on the moon to measure how much dust was collected on the moon’s surface. It turned out to be less than expected, only 2.7 inches per million years, but that still works out to 1000 feet of dust in 4.6 billion years.

Only 1/67th of the moon dust is from space. The actual measured amount of dust turned out to be 2.7 inches per million years or 1033 feet in 4.6 billion years. [The rest is kicked-up lunar soil.]
-- In The Beginning, by Walt Brown, page 214.

(10) Comets are constantly losing material. Short period comets have a life expectancy of less than 10,000 years.

(11) The earth’s magnetic field is becoming weaker and weaker. It cannot be billions of years old. In fact, because of the magnetic loss, it cannot be more than 25,000 years old.

(12) The earth is spinning about 1000 mph at the equator, but the earth is slowing down. It slows down about 1/1000 of a second each day.

“Time to Kill: Earth’s rotation is slowing down. To compensate for this lagging motion, June will be one second longer than normal. This “leap second” announced by the International Earth Rotation Service in February, will keep calendar time in close alignment with international time.” – Astronomy Magazine, June 1992, page 24.

We have a “leap second” about every 1 ½ years because the earth’s rotation is slowing down. If the earth is slowing down this, of course, means that the earth used to spin faster. If the earth is billions of year’s old, then the earth would be spinning so fast that nothing could remain on earth due to centrifugal force – not to mention that day and night be mere seconds apart.

(13) The Sahara Desert has a prevailing wind pattern. This causes the desert to grow about 4 miles each year. This process is called “desertification.” The Sahara Desert is only 1300 miles from north to south. If the earth was billions of years old, then the entire African continent should be desert.

(14) First Law of Thermodynamics: “Matter (and/or energy) cannot be created or destroyed.” If this is true, then how did the world get here? Either somebody made the world, or the world made itself. Those are the only two choices.

And yet, modern textbooks are teaching that the universe was formed from NOTHING:

“The Birth and Death of the Universe: How was the universe born and how will it end? Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called “The Big Bang.”
-- Prentice Hall General Science, 1992, page 61.

“After many billions of years, all of the matter and energy will once again be packed into a small area. This area may be no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then another big bag will occur.”
-- Prentice Hall Earth Science, 1991, pp. 36-37.

“If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse, like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.6 billion years ago. This theory of the origin of the universe is called “The Big Bang Theory.” The Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed.”
- HBJ General Science, 1989, p. 362.

“The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.”
-- Alan Gurth, P. Stelnhardt Scientific American, May 1984. page 128.

“As the nebula shrank, it spun faster and faster. Gradually, the spinning nebula flattened into a huge disk almost 10 billion kilometers across. At the center of the disk a growing protosun, or new sun, began to take shape. “
-- Prentice Hall General Science, 1992, page 69.

(15) Conservation of Angular Momentum: If a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment (like the Big Bang Theory would have been because “all of the matter in the universe was contained in a single dot”), the fragments that fly off will spin in the same direction, because the outside is spinning faster than the inside. So why do 2 and possibly three of our planets, as well as 6 of the moons, spin “backwards?”

(16) The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends towards disorder. Evolutionists claim that if you add energy, you can increase order. The Japanese added a lot of energy to Pearl Harbor and didn’t organize anything. We added a whole lot of energy to Hiroshima and we didn’t organize a thing. The sun’s energy is destructive to everything on earth except for one tiny little molecule called “chlorophyll.”

And those are just a handful of such evidences.

Shimon
 
Upvote 0
Shimon,

I will have to take these one at a time....

(1) The vast majority of books on dinosaurs are written from an evolutionary perspective which assumes that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

The fossil evidence points to the extinction of dinosaurs ~65 mya. It isn't an assumption, their disappearance at that time from the fossil record is the evidence from which this conclusion is drawn.

The leading model for the demise of the dinosaur involves a large asteroid hitting the earth. Yet the most obvious alternative explanation is almost always ignored. Almost all fossils are the remains of creatures buried by sediment filled water which has subsequently turned to rock.

almost all...

If this is due to a flood of worldwide extent, as the water rose to cover all land surfaces, animals would have been drowned, sank, and buried by massive amounts of rapidly accumulating sediment.

If this was due to a lot of floods of only local extent, the animals would have drowned , sank, been buried by only large amounts of rapidly accumulating sediment...

It is not at all surprising to find a general lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping.

It is surprising to find a lack of burial mixing only between animals of groups whose lineages are dated by radiometric means to different time periods in Earth history. It is suprising to find absolutely no mixing between modern groups (say humans, elephants, chimpanzees, bass, whales) and ancient groups (say dinosaurs, syanpsids, plesiosaurs)... That is - it is surprising until you have a tool like evolutionary theory to explain the data...

That's number one... Only an interpretation of the fossil evidence that ignores most of the data can be construed as evidence for sudden creation... I am going to interject here that it would have been good for you to state the specifics of the model that your evidence supports and how your evidence supports it as you went along. You leave us guessing whether your model is sudden creation of all life 6000 years ago, numerous creation events spread over time, whether or not your model requires a global flood, or whether the global flood is the model you are trying to give evidence for etc.... I will move on to the other points in your list as I have time... I hope others will help me. It is a long list.

Until then,
Jerry
 
Upvote 0

Corey

Veteran
Mar 7, 2002
2,874
156
49
Illinois
Visit site
✟18,987.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I haven't posted in a long but I feel a need to correct Shimon's glaringly blantant errors.

* Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. described Sirius as red.
* Cicero, in 50 B.C. stated Sirius was red.
* Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars.
* Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D.

But today, Sirius is a white dwarf. Textbooks say it should take at least 100,000 years for this to happen.

First of all, I want you to state the source of that information, the primary source. That means a published paper in a refereed journal.

Secondly, Sirius is NOT a white dwarf. At least learn some astronomy.

(5) Some of the planets are cooling off rapidly, they are losing heat. A planet cannot keep losing heat indefinitely.

Again a citation please from a refereed journal. On a similar note, heat loss is extremely small due to heat input from the sun, especially on Earth.

Saturn’s rings are unstable and are moving away from the planet – Saturn is losing its rings. If the universe is billions of year’s old, how can Saturn still have rings around it?

That's not evidence; it's an unsupported assertion. They do not make any statements or give evidence as to why their assertion has to be correct.

Why is Jupiter’s moon, Ganymede, still hot?
Jupiter’s moon, Ganymede, has a strong magnetic field. “Magnetic fields are generated by the liquid motion of molten metal inside a body. Yet, Ganymede should have cooled solid billions of years ago.”

:sigh:

Now you are being obtuse. There's this big giant planet called Jupiter very, very close to Ganymede. In fact, Ganymede orbits well inside this giant magnetic dynamo created by Jupiter. Jupiter keeps Ganymede hot.

(8) The moon is going around the earth. The moon revolves farther and farther away each year (just a few inches each year). The moon causes the ocean tides. If the earth was “billions and billions of years old,” the tides would have risen so high that they would have flooded the entire earth, twice a day.
-- Young Age for the Moon and Earth, by Dr Thomas G. Barnes. No 110 Impact, August 1992.

(9) Space is full of dust. Lots of scratches on space shuttle windows from space dust. Scientists concluded that the moon collects 1 inch of dust every 10,000 years. Lyttleton felt that x-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rock “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.”
-- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol 115, 1955, pp. 585-604.

Because of the expected amount of moondust, NASA scientists feared that the Lunar Lander would sink out of sight into the moon dust.

You keep showing your lack of knowledge. Go here; http://www.badastronomy.com, to learn why you are so wrong.

(10) Comets are constantly losing material. Short period comets have a life expectancy of less than 10,000 years.

So? That still doesn't account for comets like Hale-Bopp or other long period comets. In addition, have you ever heard of the Kuiper Belt?

11) The earth’s magnetic field is becoming weaker and weaker. It cannot be billions of years old. In fact, because of the magnetic loss, it cannot be more than 25,000 years old.

Let me acquaint you with the principles of regressions. Rule 1: You cannot predict for values of Y beyond your sampled range of X. In other words, when your data goes back to the 18th century you cannot go father back than the 18th century. The magnetic field flips-flops occasionally and this loss goes along with the flip-flop. In addition, this is the dipole moment of the field. The monopole has been greoing stronger, taking up the loss in the dipole.

(12) The earth is spinning about 1000 mph at the equator, but the earth is slowing down. It slows down about 1/1000 of a second each day.

Yes, so? That's a result of the Earth-Moon system.

(13) The Sahara Desert has a prevailing wind pattern. This causes the desert to grow about 4 miles each year. This process is called “desertification.” The Sahara Desert is only 1300 miles from north to south. If the earth was billions of years old, then the entire African continent should be desert.

No. Evidence indicates the Sahara was not always a desert. It's a fairly recent geological event.


(14) First Law of Thermodynamics: “Matter (and/or energy) cannot be created or destroyed.” If this is true, then how did the world get here? Either somebody made the world, or the world made itself. Those are the only two choices.

EVOLUTION IS NOT A FIRST CAUSE! Evolution deals ONLY with life once it exists, given imperfect replication of said life.

(15) Conservation of Angular Momentum: If a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment (like the Big Bang Theory would have been because “all of the matter in the universe was contained in a single dot”), the fragments that fly off will spin in the same direction, because the outside is spinning faster than the inside. So why do 2 and possibly three of our planets, as well as 6 of the moons, spin “backwards?”

Your image is limited and deeply flawed. Everything was IN the dot. It could not leave the dot. There was no explosion in the conventional sense. The universe merely expanded very quickly.

(16) The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends towards disorder. Evolutionists claim that if you add energy, you can increase order. The Japanese added a lot of energy to Pearl Harbor and didn’t organize anything. We added a whole lot of energy to Hiroshima and we didn’t organize a thing. The sun’s energy is destructive to everything on earth except for one tiny little molecule called “chlorophyll.”

I'm betting you got this all from Kent Hovind. Here's a tip: At the very least read Answers in Genesis's Argument Creationists Should Not Use. This is one of them. See even your creationist buddies don't think this is valid.
 
Upvote 0
EVOLUTION IS NOT A FIRST CAUSE! Evolution deals ONLY with life once it exists, given imperfect replication of said life.

Corey, over all great post... This was supposed to be a post giving evidence for creation... therefore it isn't limited in scope to material otherwise covered by evolution. Of course, the rest of his post seems to be an effort to disprove biological evolution and other theories that deal with origins and describe a geologically evolving earth or an astronomically evolving universe ... he is using the term broadly, because as he points out, theories that deal with evolutionary processes are taught in science books outside the field of neo-darwinian evolution. Still, he seems to be missing the point that this is supposed to be evidence for creation, not evidence against evolution.

On this one remark, you seem to have not been in on the parts of the exchange that make it less relevant.

I am hoping that Shimon will be one of those who, after seeing that his 'evidence for' creation and his 'evidence against' evolution fail, will take a broader view of the discussion instead of squaring off to turn it into a never-ending losing battle. For that reason, I am hoping that we can all keep the tone friendly.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by flyingpenguin
For those of you who believe that Creationists do not write books, please feel free to look at www.creationscience.com.

I have only read a tiny part of this book, but it is interesting.

I'm sure it is interesting, but it is also a bunch of bunk that no scientist takes seriously.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by flyingpenguin
For those of you who believe that Creationists do not write books, please feel free to look at www.creationscience.com.

I have only read a tiny part of this book, but it is interesting.

David

David, I don't think that any of us think creationists don't write books... Probably most of us have read some books written by creationists (I know I have)... When we say that creationists don't "publish" we are talking in terms of scientific research - which means "publish in a refereed (peer-reviewed) journal". There is a qualitative difference between lay apology and scientific research...

Jerry
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Corey; entropy actually does an excellent job of both supporting creation (a perfect creation marred by decay because of the curse) and debunking evolution. A universe dominated by decay cannot be extremely old and still retain the order we see today.

I must also point out that evidense against evolution supports creation at least indirectly because there really is no third option. Either life was made or it came about through natural processes.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Notes: Tidal stresses alone would keep Ganymede hot. It certainly does Io. :)

Further, the "magentic field growing weaker" argument only holds water if you assume the Earth's magnetic field is static, and not the result of a dynamo. In other words, if you're utterly ignorant of reality. :)

Earth/Moon recession: The Earth and the Moon are currently, due to continent position, at a high in terms of lunar recession.

Angular momentum: Net angular momentum is conserved. Which means, to anyone whose ever taken basic physics, that it's quite possible for things to rotate in the opposite direction and still conserve the net angular momentum of the system. 1+1 =2. 3 + -1 =2. Conservation.

Food for thought: Read the angular momentum bit. It applies to entropy. Net entropy increases. That is, the entropy of the whole system. It is quite common to see local entropy decrease.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by food4thought
Corey; entropy actually does an excellent job of both supporting creation (a perfect creation marred by decay because of the curse) and debunking evolution. A universe dominated by decay cannot be extremely old and still retain the order we see today.

I think you may have some misunderstandings about the way entropy runs. If the universe had started with a great deal of order, it would take a LONG time to run down; think more like a hundred billion years or longer.


I must also point out that evidense against evolution supports creation at least indirectly because there really is no third option. Either life was made or it came about through natural processes.

There are lots of other options, such as intelligent design, Norse creation myths, Hindu creation myths, Greek creation myths, "the world has always been this way", alien intervention...

"Evolution" is just a theory about how we get the variety of life we see today. There's lots of others.

What I'm looking for is evidence that shows that the Bible's story, not, say, the Hindu one, is the "true" one... and there doesn't seem to be any, scientifically. (This doesn't bug me much, because I don't *expect* my religion to be based on science. But it does bug me when people claim that it *is* based on science, and then refuse to present any science supporting it.)
 
Upvote 0

Corey

Veteran
Mar 7, 2002
2,874
156
49
Illinois
Visit site
✟18,987.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Corey; entropy actually does an excellent job of both supporting creation (a perfect creation marred by decay because of the curse) and debunking evolution. A universe dominated by decay cannot be extremely old and still retain the order we see today.

Oh, please. :sigh:

Do you even know what entropy is? Entropy is NOT disorder or decay. Entropy is the amount of energy that is forever unavailable to do work. The 2LOT states that entropy is always on the increase. That means more or more energy becomes unavailable to do work.


I must also point out that evidense against evolution supports creation at least indirectly because there really is no third option. Either life was made or it came about through natural processes.

Just because you lack imagination does not mean others do. What about aliens seeding the planet with microbial lifeforms? It's not creation and not evolution per se.
 
Upvote 0
Corey:

First of all, I want you to state the source of that information, the primary source. That means a published paper in a refereed journal.
The tactic of evolutionists is always to attack the credibility of the poster, as well attack the credibility of the source, rather than debate the evidence on its merits.
Secondly, Sirius is NOT a white dwarf. At least learn some astronomy.
I would advise you to do the same. Sirius is not a single star, it is a clump of stars, none of which are red.
Again a citation please from a refereed journal. On a similar note, heat loss is extremely small due to heat input from the sun, especially on Earth.
Regarding source, see above. Heat loss is not “too small” when discussing the age of the earth as “billions and billions” of years old.

That's not evidence; it's an unsupported assertion. They do not make any statements or give evidence as to why their assertion has to be correct.
Tell that to NASA.

Now you are being obtuse. There's this big giant planet called Jupiter very, very close to Ganymede. In fact, Ganymede orbits well inside this giant magnetic dynamo created by Jupiter. Jupiter keeps Ganymede hot.
And from where did Jupiter gain the energy to do that?
You keep showing your lack of knowledge. Go here; http://www.badastronomy.com, to learn why you are so wrong.
You haven’t proven to be any better.
So? That still doesn't account for comets like Hale-Bopp or other long period comets. In addition, have you ever heard of the Kuiper Belt?
*ALL* comets are losing matter, and could not possibly exist today if they were “billions and billions of year old.”

Let me acquaint you with the principles of regressions. Rule 1: You cannot predict for values of Y beyond your sampled range of X. In other words, when your data goes back to the 18th century you cannot go father back than the 18th century. The magnetic field flips-flops occasionally and this loss goes along with the flip-flop. In addition, this is the dipole moment of the field. The monopole has been greoing stronger, taking up the loss in the dipole.
So you’re saying that the earth, as it exists today, differs from what it used to be? Funny, whenever Creationists say that, we’re told that isn’t scientific.

Yes, so? That's a result of the Earth-Moon system.
The point was obvious: if the moon is slowing down, then it must have revolving faster. If the earth is “billions and billions” of years old, the moon would have destroyed all life on earth by flooding the earth twice a day.
No. Evidence indicates the Sahara was not always a desert. It's a fairly recent geological event.
And there’s no evidence to support the idea that the Grand Canyon was formed over “billions of years” by the Colorado river. Where’s the delta? Why isn’t the Gulf filled up with dirt by now?

EVOLUTION IS NOT A FIRST CAUSE! Evolution deals ONLY with life once it exists, given imperfect replication of said life.
This is *EXACTLY* what I had predicted earlier in this thread, and is *EXACTLY* why I had insisted on a definition of the terms that would be considered acceptable as evidence. Evolution, as taught in public schools, teaches a non-Creator point of view. This necessitates a teaching of a non-Creator view of origins, and thus they *all* fall under the heading of “Evolution” in any “Evolution vs. Creation” debate.

Your image is limited and deeply flawed. Everything was IN the dot. It could not leave the dot. There was no explosion in the conventional sense. The universe merely expanded very quickly.
And where did the “dot” come from? Where did the energy come from to caused the “dot” to “expand?”

I'm betting you got this all from Kent Hovind. Here's a tip: At the very least read Answers in Genesis's Argument Creationists Should Not Use. This is one of them. See even your creationist buddies don't think this is valid.
Once again, you attack the credibility of the source and not the evidence itself. You haven’t proven anything.


Shimon
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
The tactic of evolutionists is always to attack the credibility of the poster, as well attack the credibility of the source, rather than debate the evidence on its merits.
Actually, our tactics are pretty simple. We don't like to waste time with "sources" so fragile that they refuse to allow themselves to be examined.

Speaking for myself, I've grown weary of answering the same objections by people who are too lazy to research things themselves.

Yet I persevere. However, I do apologize for my personal insistance that sources be of at least marginal quality.
I would advise you to do the same. Sirius is not a single star, it is a clump of stars, none of which are red.

Sirius
Sirius is the largest and most brilliant star in the heavens, a binary star, brilliant white and yellow, situated in the mouth of the greater dog Canis Major.

Regarding source, see above. Heat loss is not “too small” when discussing the age of the earth as “billions and billions” of years old.
Support this. Specifically, I'd like to see the work indicating radiated heat from Earth is greater than heat input from the Sun and radioactive sources in the Earth.

Show your work, please.
And from where did Jupiter gain the energy to do that?
To do what? Form a magnetic field? It's whathappens when you spin a metallic core (hydrogen under intense heat and pressure) rapidly.
So you’re saying that the earth, as it exists today, differs from what it used to be? Funny, whenever Creationists say that, we’re told that isn’t scientific.
No. He's stating that if you make stupid assumptions, you get stupid answers. A brief look at geologic column, as well as a passing familiarity with the the current understanding of the processes at work within the earth would prevent anyone from coming to the sort of "conclusion" you posted.

In other words, only someone blindingly ignorant of geology (and thus who shouldn't be making claims about it), or deliberatly deceptive could make such claims. Try Here.

The point was obvious: if the moon is slowing down, then it must have revolving faster. If the earth is “billions and billions” of years old, the moon would have destroyed all life on earth by flooding the earth twice a day.
Really. I'm impressed. Show your model, please.

See, because actual scientists have studied this. And they've made models, and tested them against reality, and against all sorts of historical evidence you probably know nothing about.

Talk.Origins has an excellent synopsis of it.


And there’s no evidence to support the idea that the Grand Canyon was formed over “billions of years” by the Colorado river. Where’s the delta? Why isn’t the Gulf of Mexico filled up with dirt by now?
You mean, besides the obvious evidence gained by looking at it?

Why should there be a delta? Why should the gulf be filled with mud? Show your work, please. Wild claims have no place in science.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums