Does evolution divide your faith?

Hector Medina

Questioning Roman Catholic
May 10, 2002
845
6
42
San Antonio,Texas USA
Visit site
✟16,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Here is something else interesting from www.drdino.com



The number of fossils in certain areas of the world is enormous. How could earth have supported all those creatures at the same time?
Answer:


This question shows a common false assumption that many people make. They assume the earth today is the same as it has always been. Today's earth is 70% under water. There are scriptural and scientific indications that the pre-flood world had greater air pressure, higher percentages of oxygen and carbon dioxide, much more land (above sea level), less water (on the earth's surface), and a canopy of water to filter out the harmful effects of the sun. This would cause there to be many times more plants and animals on the earth than there are today. The added air pressure would diffuse more gasses into the water and support a much greater fish population. Aquatic plant life per cubic mile would multiply also. II Peter 3 tells us that the scoffers in the last days will be willingly ignorant of how God created the heavens and the earth. They would also be ignorant of the flood. These two great events must be considered before making any statements about the conditions on earth today. Only about 3% of the earth today is habitable for man. The rest is under water, ice, deserts, mountains, etc. If the earth before the flood were for example, 70% habitable, it could have supported a huge population. "O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! Then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea." - Isaiah 48:18.
The vast amount and world-wide distribution of fossils shows the flood was global and that God hates sin enough to judge the entire world. See videos #2 and #6 of our Seminar Series for much more on this topic.


Also:

Why do creationists fight against science?
Answer:


Your question has me confused. All major branches of science were started by creationists. There has never been one advancement in any field of science that the evolution theory has helped. The evolution theory is useless. I don't know of any creationists who fights against science. I certainly love science and taught it for 15 years. Most creationists that I know love science and only fight against evolution. You may be confusing the evolution theory with science. Some think the two go together. This is a common mistake due to the intense evolution propaganda campaign of the last 50 years. It would help if you watch my videotape #4 for more on this. There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal. We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution. Please don't accuse me of being against science. I am only against the false teaching of evolution as science.
Don't all scientists believe in evolution?
www.answersingenesis.com has a great list of scientists, past and present, who believe in creation.

And:

How do you explain the formation of fine strata layers called varves, such as those in the Green River formation in Wyoming, which contains 20 million fine layers which represent 1 year each? Doesn’t this prove the earth is more than 6,000 years old?
Answer:


Like many questions posed by evolutionists, one has a built-in faulty assumption. This question assumes that each of these layers is annual, and this is, obviously, not the case. Numerous experiments have been done on the formation. You can take a section of Green River formation and grind it to powder, drop it into moving water and it will resort itself into many fine layers. It has been shown that the layers are not annual at all. There are places in this formation where over 1500 layers are found in some areas and only 1000 in others, all between the same two ash layers called "event horizons." See Creation Magazine June-Aug. 1997. This subject is dealt with in great detail at the Institute for Creation Research (619) 448-0900, or you can contact their web page at www.icr.org.

And:

How are diamonds, oil, fossil fuels and natural gas formed?
Answer:


Coal comes from massive amounts of trees and plant matter that has been changed by tremendous heat and pressure. Oil and natural gas form from fish, reptile, and animal matter under similar heat and pressure conditions. The most logical time for coal, oil and gas to form was during and after the world-wide flood, when enormous amounts of animal and vegetable matter underwent mass burial under the incredible destruction and pressure of the flood waters and the sediments. (See Creation "exnihilo" 12 #2: #30). www.answersingenesis.org for article "How fast can oil form."
Diamonds are highly pressurized, pure carbon gems. (Superman used to make them from coal all the time.) Most diamonds appear in "blue ground," in or near the neck of an extinct volcano where magma erupted. The high pressure of volcanic activity could have formed diamonds. Many may have formed when the "fountains of the deep" were broken up or when mountains arose during the last months of the flood" (Psalm 104:6-8.)


Creation is hardly taught so most people only know of evolution which is always taught.
Creation is not to be underestimated!


Hector
hector@idworld.net
 
Upvote 0

Lacmeh

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2002
711
1
Visit site
✟1,156.00
Hector , your post is still goiung way off the point.
My point was not the radiometric dating methods.
My point was in finding the endpoints of radioactive decaying elements and the beginnnig ppoints of the radioactive decay row at the same place. Therefore refuting, that this could occur in 4000 years.

I am still waiting for mathematical model, that stalagmites the size I described could have been formed in less than 6000 years.
I still would like to know, what basics chemistry and mathematic (my mathematical model on how long it takes for stalagmites to form) has to do with evolution.

Please address the issue.
By the way, I am very interested in how ROCKS can form in a few weeks in a refridgerator! (That is what stalagmites are). Well I have never seen a stalagmite in any refridfgerator, not even in the one of my parents, which is over 40 years old...
 
Upvote 0
The world is billions of years old, science proves it. The earth being billions of years old does not contradict the Bible, it only contradicts the belief in a literal six days of Creation. Also, there is no way a stalagmite can form in a few weeks, it is scientifically impossible.
 
Upvote 0

Annabel Lee

Beware the Thought Police
Feb 8, 2002
14,443
1,165
115
Q'onoS
✟39,227.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
Hector, are you sure you're not confusing simple iciicle formations with stalagmites?

Main Entry: sta·lag·mite
Pronunciation: st&-'lag-"mIt also 'sta-l&g-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin stalagmites, from Greek stalagma drop or stalagmos dripping, from stalassein to let drip
Date: 1681
: a deposit of calcium carbonate like an inverted stalactite formed on the floor of a cave by the drip of calcareous water
- sta·lag·mit·ic /"sta-(")lag-'mi-tik, st&-"/ adjective
 
Upvote 0

Hector Medina

Questioning Roman Catholic
May 10, 2002
845
6
42
San Antonio,Texas USA
Visit site
✟16,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Lacmeh,

On staligmites I don't know.
Find yourself another mathematical model!

Numbers are infinite................
Ideas are infinite................

I'll try and see if I could find anything.

And its part of evolutionmwhich I'll be posting more on that later,I PROMISE!

You said:

Hector, you are aware, that forming diamonds out of coal is pure crap?
You can only form diamonds out of graphite. Coal is not pure carbon, therefore you will never get a diamond out of it.

Hmmmmmmm.........I need to look into this a bit more

Annabel Lee:

I'm not confused with icicles.

Sky77:

You said there is proof the world is billions of years old,NO PROOF its all theory its only proof if you wanna believe it.

And its not scientific,none of it been observed,which I'll be posting more on that soon for everyone I PROMISE!

I've been there too,you need to do creationist reascearch and you might(hopefully will) understand a literal a lot genesis better.
 
Upvote 0
When did I say I didn't believe in a literal Genesis? I just said that I didn't believe in a literal six days of creation. Also, there may not be absolute proof that the world is billions of years old, but there is strong evidence for it. Also, there IS proof that the world is not 5,000-10,000 years old as you believe. If the world was only a few years old, the magnetic field would be so strong that it would crush us and evey living thing to death. Also, if the universe is only a few years old we would not be able to see some stars, since many of them are more than 10,000 light years away, and we certainly would not be able to see other galaxies.
 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
There has never been one advancement in any field of science that the evolution theory has helped. The evolution theory is useless. I don't know of any creationists who fights against science.

Creationists (at least, young-earth creationists) are pouring scorn on the notion of an old Earth and universe. That means they're fighting geology, palaeontology, nuclear physics, and astronomy. They're scoffing at the possibility of abiogenesis. That means they're fighting chemistry and biochemistry. They refuse to accept that evolution occurs at all, which means they're fighting microbiology, genetics, immunology, botany, and zoology. That's a lot of fighting for a group that isn't fighting.
 
Upvote 0

Lanakila

Not responsible for the changes here.
Jun 12, 2002
8,454
222
59
Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Visit site
✟25,473.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
They (YIC) are not fighting those sciences or even the scientists that believe their specific science revolves around NDT. They are mostly just educating believers to the fact that the literal Genesis account is accurate, and there is scientific evidence to back that up contrary to evolutionist opinions. They do sometimes debate evolutionists, and sometimes they win sometimes they lose. It really is how you look at the evidence, (i.e. where you start) that gets you to a conclusion (YIC, Gap theorists, ID, or NDE).
 
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

Hector Medina

Questioning Roman Catholic
May 10, 2002
845
6
42
San Antonio,Texas USA
Visit site
✟16,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
OK,

Finally here it is:

The word "evolution" has many meanings only one of which is scientific.
In schools they are all taught to be the same but they are not near the same.
The last two are the most commonly known.

1)Cosmic evolution:The origin of time,space and matter,Big Bang
There is NO evidence whatsoever that this could happen,how can nothing become something?

2)Chemical evolution:The origin of higher elements from hydrogen,according to the Big Bang theory if there was a big bang it would have produced hydrogen and possibly helium for it to get the other elements.
Theres 92 elements plus the synthetic ones.

3)Stellar and Planetary evolution:The origin of stars and planets.Nobody has EVER seen a star or planet form,we've seen a bunch of stars blow-up -novas and supernovas,nobodys ever seen one form.This is something they believe they have NO evidence for at all!

4)Organic evolution:The origin of life.How did life get started from non-living matieral?The evolutionist ultimatly has to believe in spontaneous generation which was proven WRONG over 100 years ago,its ridiculous!But they don't have another option -they have to believe something 150 years ago,but sorry it didnt hapen.

5)Macro-evolution:The origin of major kinds.Changes between kinds of animals,nobodys ever seen that happen!There IS 0 evidence that a(for example)a dog can produce a non-dog or that a dog ceom from a non-dog,but the evolutionist HAS to believe that the dog came from a rock -4.6 billion years ago!

These five are RELIGIOUS

6)Micro-evolution:Varation within kinds. -Only this one has been observed.
This IS scientific we do see lots of variations and adaptation to the enviroment.

It really is variation:

Cats with six toes instead of five -the cat is still a cat.

The breeds of dogs -Creationists believe that all breeds originated of off one dog,the dogs are still dogs.

Worst case scenario:
Even the rejected theorys about Giraffes starting with short necks streching to long would be alright(which I don't believe)!

Teachers/professors will use thousands of examples of Micro-evoluiton to make Macro-evolution as well as all the others look scientific.


Praise the lord!

-Hector
 
Upvote 0

Satoshi

Active Member
Mar 21, 2002
309
3
43
Visit site
✟774.00
Originally posted by Hector Medina
OK,

Finally here it is:

The word "evolution" has many meanings only one of which is scientific.
In schools they are all taught to be the same but they are not near the same.
The last two are the most commonly known.


Lie #1: One can take "evolution" to mean something as simple as "change" (e.g. the evolution of the microprocessor).  Usually one can take it to refer to the _Biological_ Theory of Evolution.  Otherwise, one should differentiate the particular "evolution" being discussed.  For example, "Stellar Evolution," posits completely different methods by which stars change (i.e. evolve), and should not be conflated with the Biological Theory of Evolution.  Since schools are in the business of informing and not obfuscation, not only are different "evolutions" taught differently, but they are almost certainly taught in entirely different classes!

1)Cosmic evolution:The origin of time,space and matter,Big Bang
There is NO evidence whatsoever that this could happen,how can nothing become something?


Lie #2: The Big Bang theory does not posit that something came from nothing.  Furthermore, it may not be completely accurate, but it is certainly a scientific theory.  Finally, the methods through which the universe changes are nothing like those of Biological Evolution.

2)Chemical evolution:The origin of higher elements from hydrogen,according to the Big Bang theory if there was a big bang it would have produced hydrogen and possibly helium for it to get the other elements.
Theres 92 elements plus the synthetic ones.

Lie#3: This is probably referring to nucleosynthesis.  Indeed, if it's _elements_ that are being formed, "chemical evolution" is somewhat misleading.  Again, the processes that drive the formation of different elements are different from Biological Evolution.  The claim that this is somehow not scientific also looks to be unwarranted.
3)Stellar and Planetary evolution:The origin of stars and planets.Nobody has EVER seen a star or planet form,we've seen a bunch of stars blow-up -novas and supernovas,nobodys ever seen one form.This is something they believe they have NO evidence for at all!


Lie #4: Direct observation is unnecessary.  After all, we've never directly seen an atom, yet from other observations we can be confident of their existence.  Unsurprisingly, the stellar and planetary formation do not function in a manner similar to the Biological Theory of Evolution.
4)Organic evolution:The origin of life.How did life get started from non-living matieral?The evolutionist ultimatly has to believe in spontaneous generation which was proven WRONG over 100 years ago,its ridiculous!But they don't have another option -they have to believe something 150 years ago,but sorry it didnt hapen.


Lie #5: Abiogenesis is quite another matter from the Biological Theory of Evolution.  Furthermore, spontaneous generation was the idea that _modern_ life arose from non-life.  While I wouldn't classify this is a theory, the various hypotheses regarding abiogenesis do not violate scientific principles.

5)Macro-evolution:The origin of major kinds.Changes between kinds of animals,nobodys ever seen that happen!There IS 0 evidence that a(for example)a dog can produce a non-dog or that a dog ceom from a non-dog,but the evolutionist HAS to believe that the dog came from a rock -4.6 billion years ago!

Lie #6: Macro-evolution is _not_ the origin of major kinds, since "kinds" is an undefined term in biology.  It does, however, refer to evolution above the species level (e.g. speciation).  If one were to search Google for speciation events, one could easily find at least a few.

These five are RELIGIOUS


Even if the previously mentioned "evolutions" were not scientific, one would be hard-pressed to call them "religious."  After all, where are the morals to be found in the Big Bang theory?  Whom should we worship according macro-evolution?  What is the way to enlightenment according to nucleosynthesis.  I can only suspect that this is an attempt to equivocate actual theories to the author's religious beliefs so that the author can present his beliefs on equal footing.

6)Micro-evolution:Varation within kinds. -Only this one has been observed.

Again, kinds is undefined and as such, is not used.
This IS scientific we do see lots of variations and adaptation to the enviroment.

It really is variation:

Variation is what natural selection works _with_.

Cats with six toes instead of five -the cat is still a cat.

[sarcasm]

Well gee whiz, humans and horses are both vertebrates.  I guess it's just micro-evolution that seperates the two.  They must both be the same "kind."

[/sarcasm]

[rest snipped]
 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
They are mostly just educating believers to the fact that the literal Genesis account is accurate, and there is scientific evidence to back that up contrary to evolutionist opinions.

When they misrepresent the meaning of terms like "theory," "fact," "law," tentative," and "inaccurate," when they pull quotes out of context to make them appear to mean the opposite of what they do mean, when they misrepresent basic scientific concepts like nuclear decay and the laws of thermodynamics, then they are fighting science in general.
 
Upvote 0

Hector Medina

Questioning Roman Catholic
May 10, 2002
845
6
42
San Antonio,Texas USA
Visit site
✟16,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Satoshi:

My rescearch is based off rescearch.

heres this from www.webster.com

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

Evolution IS very much a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

As far as your reascearch goes which is'nt totally opposed to mine but still diffrent you probably think the bible is a fairy tale...



chickenman

I think my rescearch is valid.
And I think my sources,mainly: www.drdino.com
Dr. Kent Hovind and his Creation Science Evangelism series
are among the BEST!

You believe what you want cause you'll probably refute everything I say!
 
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

Lacmeh

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2002
711
1
Visit site
✟1,156.00
Hector, you are a liar.

"Your question has me confused. All major branches of science were started by creationists. There has never been one advancement in any field of science that the evolution theory has helped. The evolution theory is useless. I don't know of any creationists who fights against science. I certainly love science and taught it for 15 years."

I strongly doubt, that you began teaching science at the age of five.


On the question about stalagmite forming, this has nothing to do with evolution. They don´t change or come from nothing.

So yóu concede, that it is impossible to get stalagmites with weight over 1,5 kg formed in less 6000 years? You suggest, that I find another mathematical model. Why should I? Mine is based on selfexperimentation. You can observe the same things. Buy Calciumcarbonate, solve it in water, then you can see how much Carbonate water can hold. Then buy yourself a weighting instrument capable of measuring mg. Let one drop fall and observe the weight. Then use simple mathematics to calculate how many drops of water you need to get 1,5 kg Calcium Carbonate.

This is typical of YEC, they see an argument backfiring on them, they just ignore it. YEC is all about ignroing basic chemistry and physics.


I am still waiting for a refutation of proven radioactive decay tables. Meaning, that the beginning elements of radioactive decay and endpoints of same decay are found together. Since those elements are found together, there has to be enough time for the decay to run its course. Which is impossible for young earth. Another fact, that YEC simply choose to ignore, becasue it doesn´t fit into their worldview.
 
Upvote 0

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
Originally posted by Lacmeh
I strongly doubt, that you began teaching science at the age of five.

I know it's tough to make head or tail of Hector's posts, but I think that was Hovind saying he taught science for 15 years.

Hovind also claims to have taught high school trig, which is why he knows that Hugh Ross is full of it when Ross describes how the distance to the neighborhood stars is measured.
 
Upvote 0

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
Hector Medina declares: Evolution IS very much a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Hector, I for one will happily abandon it if you can come up with something that even remotely contradicts it.

Hector guesses correctly: ... you probably think the bible is a fairy tale ...

Most of it, and much of that is a rather bloodsoaked, gruesome fairy tale.
 
Upvote 0

Satoshi

Active Member
Mar 21, 2002
309
3
43
Visit site
✟774.00
<P>
Originally posted by Hector Medina <BR>Main Entry: re·li·gion <BR>Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&amp;n <BR>Function: noun <BR>Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY <BR>Date: 13th century <A religion of year 20th her in nun><BR>4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <BR><BR>Evolution IS very much a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
</A></P>
<P>Apparently even you don't believe that evolution fulfills definitions 1, 2, or 3.&nbsp; At this point your assertion that evolution is religious is pretty shaky.&nbsp; So, let's examine definition 4.&nbsp; Is evolution a cause in the same way that racial equality is?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Is evolution a principle in the same way that honesty is?&nbsp; Again, it isn't.&nbsp; Finally, is evolution a system of beliefs?&nbsp; One may take this to be as equally true as atomic theory.&nbsp; Unless you can provide some amazing examples, it doesn't look like your claim regarding evolution as a religion are at all true.<BR><BR>
As far as your reascearch goes which is'nt totally opposed to mine but still diffrent you probably think the bible is a fairy tale...
</P>
<P>My beliefs regarding the bible are no more relevent to this topic than my beliefs regarding the Illiad or the Koran or my assessment of the literary value of Star Wars: Episode II.<BR>
I think my rescearch is valid. <BR>And I think my sources,mainly: www.drdino.com
</P>
<P>This is your problem.&nbsp; Kent Hovind has been demonstrated to be a fraud.<BR>
You believe what you want cause you'll probably refute everything I say!
</P>
<P>If one repeats baseless falsehoods, then this is a probable reaction of the many honest posters on this forum.</P>
 
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

Hector Medina

Questioning Roman Catholic
May 10, 2002
845
6
42
San Antonio,Texas USA
Visit site
✟16,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Lacmeh,

Now what a minute,woah!

Kent Hovind is a diffrent individual.

Kent Hovind was teaching for 15 yrs NOT me.
www.drdino.com is Kent Hovind's website NOT mine.
My rescearch is off his work I am a follower of his.
I live in Texas,HE lives in Florida.

Can you believe that?

You said:

I am still waiting for a refutation of proven radioactive decay tables. Meaning, that the beginning elements of radioactive decay and endpoints of same decay are found together. Since those elements are found together, there has to be enough time for the decay to run its course. Which is impossible for young earth. Another fact, that YEC simply choose to ignore, becasue it doesn´t fit into their worldview.

Response:

The rescearch on them dosen't work,and is porbably dishonest remember what I posted earlier:The maganetic field was diffrent and is still changing today also the atmosphere was diffrent as there used to be a pocket of water around the planet.
Scientists keep dating until they get the date what fits best with their theory or they just put the fossils,rocks on the Geologic Column which is crap!

Its hard to swallow but thats tough,I'm sorry hours of reading turned out to be incorrect for you,'ive myself went through it to before.......

You said:

On the question about stalagmite forming, this has nothing to do with evolution. They don´t change or come from nothing.

Response:

It has to do with the age of the earth and a stalagmite presumend to be 150,000 yrs old is relevent to a 4.6 billion yr old world -thats in evolution.

So yóu concede, that it is impossible to get stalagmites with weight over 1,5 kg formed in less 6000 years? You suggest, that I find another mathematical model. Why should I? Mine is based on selfexperimentation. You can observe the same things. Buy Calciumcarbonate, solve it in water, then you can see how much Carbonate water can hold. Then buy yourself a weighting instrument capable of measuring mg. Let one drop fall and observe the weight. Then use simple mathematics to calculate how many drops of water you need to get 1,5 kg Calcium Carbonate.

Response:

I'm sorry your experiment didn't work -if you based it off of evolution infested textbooks then you NEED to base it off of something else.
There has to be another way.

This is typical of YEC, they see an argument backfiring on them, they just ignore it. YEC is all about ignroing basic chemistry and physics

We DON'T ignore anything,evolutionisits say that about us because us because THEY can't be wrong they have no replacement and I don't think they will find a replacement anytime soon!

Creation is'nt looked into enough.......


Satoshi,

Like I said you'll refure everything I and my kind say.

Kent Hovind a fraud.

HA,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,........

You think I haven't heard that before?
There are at least 3-4 anti-Hovind websites and a ton of people like you out there
I don't care what they and you say!
HA,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,

Good luck to ya.



In Christ,

Hector
 
Upvote 0