• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Abiogenesis or God?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by ernest_theweedwhackerguy, Sep 18, 2004.

  1. God

  2. Abiogenesis

  3. Other

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ernest_theweedwhackerguy

    ernest_theweedwhackerguy Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell

    +185
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Well, i guess science is compiled of scrap heap, or at least the science that you use. How fast do stalactytes grow? Science says that they grow about an inch every thousand years, and the fact that the Licoln memorial has over 50 inch stalactytes proves that the Lincoln memorial is over 50 thousand years old? Science is deeply flawed because they rely on a machine made tool that "accurately dates rocks and fossils." Tell me then, why when they dated a mammoth, one part was 20 thousand years older than the other?
     
  2. notto

    notto Legend

    +627
    United Ch. of Christ
    ernest,

    The lincoln memorial stalactytes are not made of the same materials as cave stalactytes.

    The mammoth dating thing is not true. The dates come from different mammoths.

    You have been lied to.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD250.html
     
  3. ernest_theweedwhackerguy

    ernest_theweedwhackerguy Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell

    +185
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    I'd have to say that you were lied to, my friend. The same mammoth type animal, was dated. His back and front sides. Both sides were 20 thousand years apart. Whats the difference between the different stalactytes? Enlighten me. - :cool:
     
  4. notto

    notto Legend

    +627
    United Ch. of Christ
    ernest, the mammoth thing is a lie. The original paper that discusses it clearly shows that the dates were not from the same animal.

    http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie001.html

    During your time here, you have used the following poor arguments
    1) Moon dust accumulation shows a young earth (this has been shown to be in error.
    2) 2nd law of thermodynamics and matter can't be created and destroyed (has nothing to do with the mechanisms of evolution)
    3) mammoth dating (a false claim that has been passed around by creationists that is false)
    4) Rapid Stalactite formation on Lincoln Memorial (which is a poor analogy to natural stalactites)

    I would encourage you to take a look at your sources and evaluate them more critically. Wherever you are getting your information from, it is obviously not a good source of information. You might also try to just ask questions instead of making claims that you heard and are repeating without reading any material on them or investigating them for yourself first.

    Now, on to the stalatites:

    The stalactites from the lincoln memorial are formed from the disolving calcium carbonate used in the cement (whichh is already loose, porous, and crushed) that holds it together. The cement already has the material needed in high concentration crushed and loose, in a cave stalactite, the material is much less poreous and more water needs to drip to build up the levels of calcium carbonate in the stalactites. The stalactites at the lincoln memorial are also caused by rain, not groundwater. The steps from which they come are exposed to lots of water during rain and cleaning. Cave stalactites are not formed by this type of activity and are formed by slow seepage of ground water (that is not as acidic as the rain in DC) and this causes a slow drip (not occacional runnof as with a rain).

    You can't compare the lincln memorial stalactites to natural ones because they weren't formed the same way, formed by natural materials, and are not in caves. The environments are completely different.

    Why don't we see stalactites forming in 50 years in nature? Why don't we see them all forming rapidy 100 years in nature? Because the natural process takes time. Scientists say that natural stalactites grow about and inch every thousand years because we can directly measure them growing now. Some are faster, but some are much, much slower. Your comparison is invalid because just because one example can be shown (even if faulty) of rapid growth, that doesn't mean that they all can or do grow that rapidly. We don't observe this rapid development in all natural stalactites, do we?

    edited to add:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html
    Many people have found that stalactites forming on concrete or mortar outdoors may grow several centimeters each year. Stalactite growth in these environments, however, bears little relation to that in caves, because it does not proceed by the same chemical reaction. Although cement and mortar are made from limestone, the same rock in which the caves form, the carbon dioxide has been driven off by heating. When water is added to these materials, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times as soluble in water as calcite is. A calcium hydroxide solution absorbs carbon dioxide rapidly from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate, and produce stalactites. This is why stalactites formed by solution from cement and mortar grow much faster than those in caves. To illustrate, in 1925, a concrete bridge was constructed inside Postojna Cave, Yugoslavia, and adjacent to it an artificial tunnel was opened. By 1956, tubular stalactites 45 centimeters long were growing from the bridge, while stalactites of the same age in the tunnel were less than 1 centimeter long.
     
  5. ernest_theweedwhackerguy

    ernest_theweedwhackerguy Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell

    +185
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Everything in that post is irrelevent....Except for the bit on stalactytes. I still think i'm right though, so ill do more research. - :cool:
     
  6. Vance

    Vance Contributor

    +239
    Christian
    Married
    Ernest, one bit of advice from one Christian to another:

    Read my signature line!!!

    (and the same goes for the age of the earth)
     
  7. ernest_theweedwhackerguy

    ernest_theweedwhackerguy Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell

    +185
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Gotcha. - :cool:
     
  8. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    how is it irrelevant? it is a rebuttal to every one of your claims so far. All your claims have been dealt with long ago, most probably long before you were born even. the moon dust one was dealt with back in the 60s for example.
     
  9. ernest_theweedwhackerguy

    ernest_theweedwhackerguy Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell

    +185
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    I know this. But it has not been proved otherwise. Scientists just say that it is false, so people believe it without seeing any evidence.
     
  10. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    what? The scientists conclusions are based on the evidence which you can go and find out for yourself if you like.
     
  11. ernest_theweedwhackerguy

    ernest_theweedwhackerguy Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell

    +185
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Why should i spend time seeing that scientists are contradicting themselves all the time whenever something that they thought was right goes wrong. There is no point. I don't need to look for studies on the moons dust because they probably just changed their theory to account for the little dust on the moon, or something dusting the planet every 7 thousand years.
     
  12. Mistermystery

    Mistermystery Here's looking at you kid

    +135
    Atheist
    .
     
  13. ernest_theweedwhackerguy

    ernest_theweedwhackerguy Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell

    +185
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    :spam:
     
  14. Tomk80

    Tomk80 Titleless

    +384
    Agnostic
    Nope, just repeating what has already been told to you. You accuse scientists of being dishonest. But in stead of taking the effort to see whether scientists were dishonest, you just repeat your statement and repeat that you don't care about checking it. So, how do you know that what you are saying is right, since you never checked? How do you know you are not making false accusations?
     
  15. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    no, they actually measured the amount of dust that lands on the moon and it fits perfectly well with a moon that is a few billion years old. Even young earth creation scienctists such as those at AIG will agree with this. The fact of the matter is that there is no problem with the amount of dust on the moon for old earth ideas and your original allegations are factually incorrect.
     
  16. Mistermystery

    Mistermystery Here's looking at you kid

    +135
    Atheist
    Are you reffering to your own posts?
     
  17. Vance

    Vance Contributor

    +239
    Christian
    Married
    Again, please read my signature line. You are just believing what you are being told by Creationist sources. Even worse, you are believing especially BAD creationist sources. Even extreme groups like Answers in Genesis have concluded that the moon dust argument is just plain wrong. And, I can assure you that the Creationist source who told you about the moon dust (and mammoth, etc) also KNOW it is wrong (since all these Creationist "ministries" assuredly read each other's stuff). So, what does that tell you about your source?

    AiG has presented a list of previous arguments which Creationists should no longer use, since they have been proven false or are otherwise not compelling given modern discoveries. They have called people like Hovind to the carpet for continuing to use such arguments (rather than rewrite his books, videos, etc) even though he knows them to be false.
     
  18. ernest_theweedwhackerguy

    ernest_theweedwhackerguy Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell

    +185
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    What Hovind says is completely correct. Have you ever seen him debate evolutionists? He crushes them and makes them speechless. And all you people say is that I'm wrong. I know i do the same, but you people never answer the questions i ask, and when i told you about thermodynamics, you said it was false. Let me ask you one thing, why do both the first and second law disprove evolution, yet you won't even touch it? - :confused:
     
  19. caravelair

    caravelair Well-Known Member

    +65
    Atheist
    see, those of us that understand the laws of thermodynamics know that evolution does not violate these laws in any way. read more here, if you actually want to learn:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

    and as far as i have seen, hovind has never been completely correct about anything.
     
  20. Karl - Liberal Backslider

    Karl - Liberal Backslider Senior Veteran

    +275
    Anglican
    Married
    UK-Labour
    Ernest.

    For evolution to occur, the following physical events need to occur:

    Reproduction
    Genetic mutation

    Which of these are prevented by either law of thermodynamics?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...