"Brainwashed" by evolution?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Okay, a quick comment on your signature... That guy does not believe the Bible and therefore holds no credance with me.

My reasoning behind rebutting evolution is because from what I've researched, it is SCIENTIFICALLY and GEOGRAPHICALLY impossible for the Earth to be more than 6,000 years old.

Of course, the 99.99% of earth scientists who disagree with you are too stupid to honestly appraise the evidence as you have done? To be honest, that proposition doesn't even pass the laugh test.

And that alone rebukes the ENTIRE evolution theory. There is, however, no credible evidence that the Earth IS older than 6,000 years old..... Prove me wrong

Impossible, because you already "know" you're right.

Let's start.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, then why do no naturally occuring isotopes exist with half-lives less than 80 million years, except those which form part of the decay chains of longer lived isotopes?

How did Ingleborough in the West Riding of Yorkshire form in less than 4,000 years? We know it's been around at least that long because there's an iron age fort on the summit. It has a limestone pedestal, then a layer of gritstone on top of that, another layer of limestone and then a final cap of gritstone. The limestone base is riddled with miles upon miles of water formed caves.

The magnetic striping of the mid-Atlantic ridge correlates with magentic field reversal evidence from other sources. How did all these magnetic reversals occur in such a small period of time? What mechanism drove the rapid reversals? Why does that mechanism not operate now?

Rocks can be dated using isochron methods. If the assumptions upon which the isochron method is based are not true, then it is not possible to get an age because the points will not line up on a straight line. Isochron ages are nevertheless possible, indicating the assumptions are correct. These isochron ages can be in the range of billions of years. The principle is explained here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

As also indicated on that page, independent methods give the same ages. If you give me a watch, and it says it's three o'clock, it might be broken. If I look at several, and they all say it's three o'clock, it's probably because it really is three o'clock.

That should be enough to be going on with for now. If you're really interested, then Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth remains a seminal text.

 

[lucaspa]

Okay, a quick comment on your signature... That guy does not believe the Bible and therefore holds no credance with me.

Both "guys" believe the Bible. The first is by an evangelical Christian in an evangelical Christian publication! The second is by a minister and President of Princeton Theological Seminary! McCosh was one of the most noted Christian theologians of his time. You think the faculty would have kept McCosh if he didn't believe the Bible?

No, FireFort, you can't dismiss them that easily. They don't believe your interpretation of the Bible, but your interpretation is not the Bible. It is simply your fallible, man-made interpretation.

My reasoning behind rebutting evolution is because from what I've researched, it is SCIENTIFICALLY and GEOGRAPHICALLY impossible for the Earth to be more than 6,000 years old. And that alone rebukes the ENTIRE evolution theory. There is, however, no credible evidence that the Earth IS older than 6,000 years old..... Prove me wrong

Ah, so you admit that evolution is proven by direct observation. What you are trying to do is say the earth is young.

There are 64 nuclides that have half-lives in excess of 1,000 years. Of these, 47 have half-lives in the range 1,000 to 50 million years. Seven must be excluded from this analysis because they are being generated by interaction with cosmic rays or the decay of other nuclides. If the earth were new (within 10,000 years) then there should be significant amounts of all 40 nuclides in the earth's crust. If, on the other hand, the earth is billions of years old, then these 40 nuclides should have decayed, leaving no trace. We would then be able only to find nuclides with very long half-lives. So how many of the 40 short half-lived nuclides can we find in the crust? None. Zip. Of the 17 nuclides with half-lives greater than 50 million years, we can find detectable amounts of all 17. You may object to specific dating procedures, but this data indicates that the earth is well over 50 million years. In fact, for the half-life decay of nuclides with 50 million year half-lives to eliminate those nuclides, the earth has to be very old.

"Furthermore, it will be maintained that even though any given age measurements may be completely erroneous due to leaching or emanation or some other effect, there are many cases now known where the age estimate has been checked by two or more different methods, independently. It would seem improbable that the elements concerned would have each been altered in such a way as to continue to give equal ages; therefore, such agreement between independent measurements would seem to be strong evidence that alteration has not occurred and that the indicated date is therefore valid." Duane Gish, The American Biology Teacher, March 1973, pg. 136.

Notice that this quote is not from an evolutionist, but from one of the most prominent of creationists -- deputy director of the Institute for Creation Research. Since the "indicated age" is of the order of 4.5 billion years, here is another proof.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html
"Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."

You can confirm this by looking at any of the sources for the article.

 

[FireFort23]

If everything was created 6000 years ago then God created light in the formation of supernova, supernovas that never occured. That makes God a deciever. Therefore the earth must have a signifigantly shorter history then the universe. This implies that the earth was temporally slowed.

Are you saying that God is incapable of creating the stars in their current form?

If the earth is 6000 years old then black skin and facial build evolved in three thousand years (we have pyramid art that shows black facial structure). Alternatively white skin and build evolved in 3000 years. Chinese body structure and facial build must also have evolved in a similar period or time (or white and black builds evolved from that).

I don't quite understand just what you're saying here. Are you saying that the only way for different ethnics types to have emerged is through evolution? Why do you insist on limiting God's power like that?

 

[FireFort23]

You know, I am absoluely amazed that, in this supposedly Christian Only forum, there are so many people here willing to belittle what the Bible tells us about creation. If the Bible fails ANYWHERE, then the Bible fails EVERYWHERE. How can you possibly trust some parts of the Bible as being literal, and then say others are meant to be figurative?

What if Jesus was just talking figuratively when he said that HE is the only way to heaven? How do you know what he really meant was that his TEACHINGS are the only way to heaven? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Sinai]

You know, I am absoluely amazed that, in this supposedly Christian Only forum, there are so many people here willing to belittle what the Bible tells us about creation.

Please excuse me, FireFort, but are you referring to comments made on this particular thread or on some other thread (which I might not have read)? If it is this thread, which comments do you think "belittle what the Bible tells us about creation"? Although various posts seem to indicate that the writers have varying interpretations of what is meant by the first chapter of Genesis, I did not see any that actually belittled what the Bible had to say (though I may have overlooked the one(s) you were referring to).

Granted, I may not fully agree with my Christian brothers who may interpret the first chapter of Genesis less literally than I do. But I also probably disagree with your interpretation of what the most likely meaning may be. That does not necessarily mean that any of us are belittling what the Bible says or means.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Are you saying that God is incapable of creating the stars in their current form?



I don't quite understand just what you're saying here. Are you saying that the only way for different ethnics types to have emerged is through evolution? Why do you insist on limiting God's power like that?

The light from the stars would not have had time to get here. Suppose it takes someone an hour to get home from work. If they arrive at 5:15 and say they left at 5:00, you know that they are lieing. There was not enough time. In the same way, light from stars ten billion lightyears away indicates that the Universe is at least ten billion years old. Otherwise, the light simply could not have arrived yet.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

You know, I am absoluely amazed that, in this supposedly Christian Only forum, there are so many people here willing to belittle what the Bible tells us about creation. If the Bible fails ANYWHERE, then the Bible fails EVERYWHERE. How can you possibly trust some parts of the Bible as being literal, and then say others are meant to be figurative?

What if Jesus was just talking figuratively when he said that HE is the only way to heaven? How do you know what he really meant was that his TEACHINGS are the only way to heaven? Where do you draw the line?

The Psalms are poetry (actually poetic songs). They use poetic language that is not intended to be taken literally. By your logic, because the Psalms are not entirely literal, the entire Bible is false.

You are confusing literal with true. Poetry, metaphors, myths, and parables all convey messages while not being literally true. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is not literal, yet it conveys a message that is true.

 

[wblastyn]

Why do creationists think that if we reject their beliefs (literal Genesis) that we reject God? Do they think they are God or something?

 

[Dracil]

Why do creationists think that if we reject their beliefs (literal Genesis) that we reject God? Do they think they are God or something?

I think it's called Pride. They can't stand the idea that their interpretation might be wrong. There are some Creationists that don't think that way though (that if we reject their belief, we reject God/Bible/etc), so Pride is less of an issue for them.

 

[Bushido216]

Off topic, but I just wanted to say that it's really cool for me to see a Catholic from Taiwan.

 

[Dracil]

Well, I'm actually in the US right now for college.

 

[FireFort23]

The light from the stars would not have had time to get here. Suppose it takes someone an hour to get home from work. If they arrive at 5:15 and say they left at 5:00, you know that they are lieing. There was not enough time. In the same way, light from stars ten billion lightyears away indicates that the Universe is at least ten billion years old. Otherwise, the light simply could not have arrived yet.

So God couldn't have created the stars in their current form and have the light already be shining on Earth? Why limit the way that God creates like that?

 

[FireFort23]

You are confusing literal with true. Poetry, metaphors, myths, and parables all convey messages while not being literally true. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is not literal, yet it conveys a message that is true.

How do you know that story didn't truly take place? After all, Jesus said it did...

 

[Bushido216]

Well, I'm actually in the US right now for college.

Still, it's really cool to see the message spreading so far.

Of course, I still have to work on my friend, heh.

 

[FireFort23]

I think it's called Pride. They can't stand the idea that their interpretation might be wrong. There are some Creationists that don't think that way though (that if we reject their belief, we reject God/Bible/etc), so Pride is less of an issue for them.

I have no translation of the Bible. I read it, I believe what it says. End of story.

 

[Dracil]

Translation? If you'r reading it in English, it already is a translation.

And hey, I also read it, I believe what it says. End of story.

Yet you are a YEC, while I am a TE. Get the point? You're still interpreting it, whether or not you admit it.

 

[ThePhoenix]

So God couldn't have created the stars in their current form and have the light already be shining on Earth? Why limit the way that God creates like that?

I DID NOT SAY THAT. Sheesh, read my post. I said it is concievable that God created the light "en route." But what makes God a lier is the concept that God created light from Supernovas en route. Those stars NEVER EXISTED in your theory, and God would have no reason besides deception to create the illusion of supernovas from "stars" that were (or appeared to be) millions of lightyears away. Thus, either time slowed down in the vicinity of the earth, or God is a deciever. Or, possibly, Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally.

 

[lucaspa]

Are you saying that God is incapable of creating the stars in their current form?

No. God can have done that. However, look at the post more carefully. The supernovae are such that, for their light to look as it does, they never could have happened in a 6,000 year old universe. God had to set it up to look that way but it wasn't really that way. When you make a thing look one way but it is really another, you are deceiving people. God can deceive us. That is, God is capable of making a 6,000 year old universe that looks like it is 13.4 billion years old. But if God does that, then God is no different from Satan. He is deceiving us.

I don't quite understand just what you're saying here. Are you saying that the only way for different ethnics types to have emerged is through evolution? Why do you insist on limiting God's power like that?

Let's follow the logic of creationism. Two people -- Adam and Eve. What ethnic type were they? Since there are 3 major ethnic groupings among humans, they couldn't be all 3, could they? After all, there are only two of them. So, even if Adam had white skin and Eve had black (or vice versa), where did the epicanthic folds and the skin tones of the Asians come from? They had to have evolved, didn't they? After all, nowhere in the Bible does it say God created more people after Adam and Eve.

 

[lucaspa]

So God couldn't have created the stars in their current form and have the light already be shining on Earth? Why limit the way that God creates like that?

We are not limiting God, we are looking at the theological consequences that happen if God created that way. If God created as you say, with the light already on the way to earth so that it looks like the stars are millions of light years away in distance and time, then God is deceiving us.

Firefort, what you are doing is called the Oomphalos Argument. That is, God made a universe that only looks old but it is really young. The problem with this is not science. Science can accept that an omnipotent deity did this. The problem is what it does to God and Christianity. It destroys God as a deity we can follow and worship. What you are saying is that God deliberately lied to us. Instead of making a universe that looks like it is -- young -- He made a universe that looks like it is not -- old.

Now, we have to trust God. We have to trust that He really did have Jesus rise from the dead, that He will offer us salvation and eternal life. IOW, we trust that God is not a liar. But now you have made God a liar. You say that God deliberately lied to us by making the universe look old when it is young. Well, if God can lie about that, then God can lie about anything. God can still exist, but now He is no better than Satan (since Satan lies, too) and He is no longer a God we can worship and follow.

Congratulations. In order to hold onto your human, fallible young earth theory, you have destroyed Christianity!

 

[lucaspa]

You know, I am absoluely amazed that, in this supposedly Christian Only forum, there are so many people here willing to belittle what the Bible tells us about creation. If the Bible fails ANYWHERE, then the Bible fails EVERYWHERE.

1. We are not belittling the Bible, but a fallible human interpretation of the Bible.
2. The Domino theory of the last sentence doesn't work here any more than it did in Southeast Asia in the 1960s. We already know from Mark 10 and Matthew 19 that the Bible failed. Jesus says so himself. Not only that, but we know from Peter's dream in Acts that God can change His mind. He did so about the dietary laws.

How can you possibly trust some parts of the Bible as being literal, and then say others are meant to be figurative?

Simple. Some parts of the Bible either have extrabiblical evidence to support them or at least no extrabiblical evidence to contradict them. Some parts of the Bible have extrabiblical evidence to say a literal interpretation is wrong. How do you feel about Luke 2:1? Do you insist that all the world was enrolled? If you don't, then why do you trust the rest of the gospels? If you do, then what do you do with all that evidence about non-Roman peoples who existed at the time and were not enrolled?

What if Jesus was just talking figuratively when he said that HE is the only way to heaven? How do you know what he really meant was that his TEACHINGS are the only way to heaven? Where do you draw the line?

I think he was talking figuratively. I think he was laying out a corporate organization chart so that, no matter what religion a person is following, he will go thru Jesus to get to heaven. If he was not speaking figuratively, what happens to Adam, Moses, Joshua, David, Ruth, etc? They never even knew Jesus' teachings, much less Jesus himself. Are you really ready to keep all these people out of heaven by your literal reading?