Young Earth evidence

jpcedotal said:

Believing in a false religion like evolution is still a waste of time. Just because one spend's his whole life pursuing it does not change the fact that it is still a false religion.

Click to expand...

How is it a religion?

jpcedotal said:

Believing in a false religion like evolution is still a waste of time. Just because one spend's his whole life pursuing it does not change the fact that it is still a false religion.

Click to expand...

I really wish I had the chutzpah to post baseless stuff like this with such conviction. My concern for factuality and truth prevents me from doing so however.

Does it take more faith to believe in something or to not believe in something?

No matter which way you cut it..it is still all about questioning the existence of GOD.

If we can't agree that "In the beginning God..., then every other debate that deals with life or origins or any moral issue is a waste of time.

Now, if one believes in God but still holds on to evolution, then at least there is a truth to start from.

jpcedotal said:

Believing in a false religion like evolution is still a waste of time. Just because one spend's his whole life pursuing it does not change the fact that it is still a false religion.

Click to expand...

In what way is it a religion? Evolution is a biological phenomenon, and is related to the theory that all life is descended from a single common ancestor. It's not a 'religion', any more than the theory of atoms or the theory of general relativity are 'religions'.

jpcedotal said:

Believing in a false religion like evolution is still a waste of time. Just because one spend's his whole life pursuing it does not change the fact that it is still a false religion.

Click to expand...

Evolution is not a religion, and you will very quickly understand why: no religion can bear that it's followers believe another religion. If you are a muslim, you're only a muslim, and not a muslim plus a christian. You can, on the other hand ( and many people do this) accept the theory of evolution and be a christian, or a muslim etc.

No - other - religion accepts that.

jpcedotal said:

Believing in a false religion like evolution is still a waste of time. Just because one spend's his whole life pursuing it does not change the fact that it is still a false religion.

driewerf said:

Evolution is not a religion,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's what he said, isn't it? evolution is a false religion.

driewerf said:

and you will very quickly understand why: no religion can bear that it's followers believe another religion. If you are a muslim, you're only a muslim, and not a muslim plus a christian. You can, on the other hand ( and many people do this) accept the theory of evolution and be a christian, or a muslim etc.

No - other - religion accepts that.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of completed Jews?

Wiccan_Child said:

In what way is it a religion?

Click to expand...

It's not ... it's a false religion.

Jeremiah 2:11 Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.

AV1611VET said:

That's what he said, isn't it? evolution is a false religion.

Click to expand...

A false religion - who stes the standards? - is also a religion. The theory of evolution is not a religion. Neither a false nor a true one. It's a scientific theory.

Ever heard of completed Jews?

Click to expand...

No. Enlighten me.

AV1611VET said:

It's not ... it's a false religion.

Jeremiah 2:11 Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.

Click to expand...

Still calling it a religion, regardless if it is false or true. No one has yet to show it is a religion let alone false.

Nabobalis said:

Still calling it a religion, regardless if it is false or true. No one has yet to show it is a religion let alone false.

Click to expand...

Just like those who demand evidence for God?

No one has yet to show He is, let alone isn't.

driewerf said:

A false religion - who stes the standards? - is also a religion. The theory of evolution is not a religion. Neither a false nor a true one. It's a scientific theory.


No. Enlighten me.

Click to expand...

I'd wager they're Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah, etc. If I'm right, that would mean the first Christians were 'completed Jews'.

jpcedotal said:

Believing in a false religion like evolution is still a waste of time. Just because one spend's his whole life pursuing it does not change the fact that it is still a false religion.

Click to expand...

Here jpcedotal is ostensibly talking about science and people who advocate real science and evidenced based conclusions regarding evolution.

When called on his phantasmal and inflammitory language, his response is...

jpcedotal said:

Does it take more faith to believe in something or to not believe in something?

No matter which way you cut it..it is still all about questioning the existence of GOD.

If we can't agree that "In the beginning God..., then every other debate that deals with life or origins or any moral issue is a waste of time.

Now, if one believes in God but still holds on to evolution, then at least there is a truth to start from.

Click to expand...

An apologetical screed against atheists, having nothing to actually do with evolution, the science behind it, evidences for a young earth - which is the actual topic of this thread - and yes, I'm going to call some of you out for being off topic lead by our resident Crevo red herring monger - and a pathetically transparent attempt to tie evolution with atheism, despite the fact the the vast majority of people who accept evolution are religious believers.

Sorry jcpedotal, you're non-contributions to this thread and this subforum are far too transparent to not be eviscerated.

Wiccan_Child said:

I'd wager they're Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah, etc. If I'm right, that would mean the first Christians were 'completed Jews'.

Click to expand...

After 7 years, really? You let him do this to you? What does the question you responded to or your response have to do with the Young earth evidences or Crevo in particular?

Wiccan_Child said:

I'd wager they're Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah, etc. If I'm right, that would mean the first Christians were 'completed Jews'.

Click to expand...

They were very surprised when the gentiles were receiving the Holy Spirit. There was a lot of talk about it. Paul was the one that believed he was called to teach and preach to the non Hebrews. Even Jesus refered to the gentiles as 'dogs'.

24Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.g He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evilh spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. 27“First let the children eat all they want,” he told her,
“for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
28“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
29Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
30She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Evolution is a religion in the sense that an apple is a religion. That is, neither one is a religion.

So I guess you could say evolution is a false religion but then a Honda Civic is a false religion too.

NGC 6712 said:

Evolution is a religion in the sense that an apple is a religion. That is, neither one is a religion.

So I guess you could say evolution is a false religion but then a Honda Civic is a false religion too.

Click to expand...

Yet people can eat apples and drive Honda Civics religiously.

AV1611VET said:

Yet people can eat apples and drive Honda Civics religiously.

Click to expand...

Mostly on Christmas and Easters?

Jazer said:

They were very surprised when the gentiles were receiving the Holy Spirit. There was a lot of talk about it. Paul was the one that believed he was called to teach and preach to the non Hebrews. Even Jesus refered to the gentiles as 'dogs'.

24Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.g He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evilh spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. 27“First let the children eat all they want,” he told her,
“for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
28“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
29Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
30She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Click to expand...

"Forget them, Wendy. Forget them all. Come with me where you'll never, never have to worry about grown up things again." Peter Pan

I know this is more about YEC evidence. But many like AIG here and Here are some quotes to consider if everyone only thinks AIG is the only side that has a preconcieved notions. (and I like AIG- answers in Genesis alot!!!)


"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127


"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216


"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'." Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105


"Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to." Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3


"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man." John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802


"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.
"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'" Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199


"We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88


"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well." Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28



"And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe." Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author), "In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can't even break even.". Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10


"Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)


"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." J. E. O'Rourks, "Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy". American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47


"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

1983.... really?

Reminds me of when Einstein published his paper on general relativity, and as it gained acceptence, there was a petition signed by a hundred signatures who didn't agree with Einstein and GR's implications, to which Einstein replied -
(paraphrasing) 'if I were wrong, all it would have taked was just one signature.'

Point is, using old silly quote mines are silly.