Convince me

[Mallon]

You forgot to insult me, phil.

 

[Calypsis4]

Does your source know how gravity works?

Look, don't try and pull that rubbish on me. I am an ex-evolutionist and I taught science for 26 yrs. I know the subject and know it well. The word 'max' was used in the context that that was the 'oldest possible age' by the scientific standards applied to each category.

Creation scientists, following up on what evolution scientists have revealed, determined that fact. Face it. Evolutionists saw the problem first but like you they prefer to live in denial of their own facts and as is usually the case they come up with some hair-brain theory to plug the holes in their belief system. There's nothing new about that.

Your source claims that in the past, when the moon was closer, it would have receded faster. This is quite obviously wrong because anyone who knows gravity know the equation G=(m1*m2)/(r^2), which means the closer it is, the stronger the pull. So being closer would have SLOWED the rate of recession as gravity would be much stronger the closer the moon was.

Then work it out yourself! No matter how you cut it you can't get 4.5 billion yrs for the age of the moon. Period. The only way you can do that is fudge the factors and lie!

Yes, us Christians have deep seated prejudices against Biblical teachings. That’s why we’re CHRISTIANS. Oh. Wait.

"Christians"?

Furthermore, you don’t need to have an eyewitness to show something happened. There is other evidence.

When it comes to very pre-historic times you have nothing but guesswork. Why? Because you have no way of knowing that the natural order of things has changed or not. Any change in the natural order of the balance of nature as caused by a giant meteor, comet, or solar conditions...as well as (ahem!) floods,...etc. would throw evolutionary theory off by not just millions but perhaps billions of yrs. That's why it takes personal observation to establish things scientifically. You evolutionists don't have that. Why don't you be honest and admit it?

You could use, say, Google to find some of it. Here you go:
The Pangaea Theory

Pangea is a theory, nothing more. Same argument above applies here.

Your source is on radioactive decay, not oil pressure. Fail.

No, the same source {R.A.T.E} reported on both. Their figures hold true and independent (evolutionist) labs confirm it.

Ah, yes, ICR, one of the bastions of creationist falsehood.

You are the one giving falsehoods here. The creationists are right and God's Word tells the truth about creation. You just don't believe it.

Question: Do you know WHY the sun shrinks? It’s because mass is being lost due to the process of fusion.

Because, like everything else in our universe it is subject to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Is it really that hard for you to figure out. It is the same reason for luner recession...and not lunar evolution! Figure it out.

DID YOU KNOW: The Sun can be approximated as a sphere. The volume of a sphere is 4/3 * pi * (r^3). The Sun currently contains about 99.86% of the mass in the solar system, with a current diameter of ~865,000 miles. Now, if the sun were the size of the Earth’s orbit, it’s radius would be (865,000/2=432500)+93000000 miles or about 93.5 million miles. Its radius would be 213.5 times what it is now. Which means its volume would be (213.5^3=)about 9.7 million times what it is now. So it would MASS 9.7 million times what it does now. Which would mean there would BE no solar system, because nothing would have escaped the Sun’s gravity. It ALSO means the Sun would have to be burning millions of times faster to lose that mass and thus that diameter.

And?

Look, even evolutionists admit it is shrinking and it is NOT getting larger in cycles. Who are you trying to fool? Didn't you both looking at my documentation?

Quote - "John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour."

Lubkin, Gloria B., Physics Today, V. 32, No. 9, 1979.

See what happens when you linearly extrapolate without thinking about the WHY? And given how wrong they are about the moon and the population of the earth, I don’t trust them with numbers here, either.

I answered this above. Now start doing some thinking on your own and stop mouthing Darwinians (who happen to agree with your prejudices) like a parrot.

Did you even read his link? They didn’t USE tree rings.

It doesn't make any difference their dates are in error. Others do you the tree ring argument.

1. You do not need an eyewitness. Get over it.
2.CD701: Decay of Earth's magnetic field

Rather than believe the likes of you and brainwashed inviduals like you...yes!

The Kuiper Belt and the Solar System's Comet Disk -- Gladman 307 (5706): 71 -- Science

By...whose...obervation? I utterly reject that nonsense. No one in the history of astronomy has ever seen a gaseous cloud of any kind form into a planet. You are dreaming.

So, all in all, all still wrong. Thanks again for playing.

I'm not playing. I am giving you a dire warning. You are the one in the wrong. The Lord is not pleased with such a position. There wasn't a single evolutionist in the Christian world until Darwin...because the Bible nowhere teaches it. In fact just the opposite:

Romans 1:22-23 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

If evolution is found in the Bible anywhere this is it...in condemnation.

I reject evolution in toto. It is an unscientific and unbiblical position that had its birth in the mind of Satan.

 

[bibleblevr]

So what about those fossils that Caly4 mentioned that still had tissue on them, or blood in them yet were still considered millions of years old ..............

 

[Mallon]

So what about those fossils that Caly4 mentioned that still had tissue on them, or blood in them yet were still considered millions of years old..............

They didn't have "blood" in them. Read this:
Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Note the part about how the discoverer of these tissues -- Mary Schweitzer -- is a Christian and doesn't like how neocreationists have completely misrepresented her finds.

 

[Calypsis4]

Don't worry C4 I got this one.

Nuh uh!!!!

There, I took care of it for you.

The skeptics are still in error on this...big time.

Here is one reason why:



Jezebel's seal. Not quite but almost spherical.

Quote - At a very early period the Jews, like the other peoples of western Asia, used signets which were cut in intaglio on cylindrical, spherical, or hemispherical stones, and which were employed both to attest documents (Neh. x. 1 et seq.) instead of a signature, and as seals (Isa. xxix. 11).

Read more: JewishEncyclopedia.com - SEAL:

This issue is at an end. There isn't anything more that needs be said about it.
​

 

[Mallon]

Jezebel's seal. Not quite but almost spherical.

That's the stamp, C4. That's the piece they used to press into the clay (bulla) to flatten it. I posted pictures of the bullae themselves above, which is what Job compared the shape of the earth to. You've got it backwards.

 

[bibleblevr]

They didn't have "blood" in them. Read this:
Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Note the part about how the discoverer of these tissues -- Mary Schweitzer -- is a Christian and doesn't like how neocreationists have completely misrepresented her finds.

very nice,

lets pitch another question, and a favorite of YEC's in my neck of the woods, "Why don't we see tons of buffalo fossils, millions of them roamed the plains, but their bones were naturally eroded away! you need a flood for fossilisation"

I Googled Buffalo fossils, but couldn't find anything,

 

[Mallon]

very nice,

lets pitch another question, and a favorite of YEC's in my neck of the woods, "Why don't we see tons of buffalo fossils, millions of them roamed the plains, but their bones were naturally eroded away! you need a flood for fossilisation"

I Googled Buffalo fossils, but couldn't find anything,

I'm not sure what you're asking, here.

 

[Calypsis4]

Biblebeliever this is to you and not Mallon:

They didn't have "blood" in them. Read this:
Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Note the part about how the discoverer of these tissues -- Mary Schweitzer -- is a Christian and doesn't like how neocreationists have completely misrepresented her finds.

He isn't telling the truth...again.





This is what Mary Schwietzer actually said about it: "Well, there are small, red structures within the vessels that look like nucleated red cells. So on the surface, this is a case of "if it looks like a duck…." But after 70 million years, just because something looks familiar doesn't mean that that is what it is. The fossil record can mimic many things, so without doing the chemistry to show that there are similarities to blood cells at the molecular level, I do not make any claims that they are cells.

However, we do know that, except for mammals, all living vertebrates (fish, frogs, birds, and reptiles) have nucleated red blood cells in circulation. Mammals are unique in having their blood cells "spit out" the nucleus before they go into circulation (unless there is a disease). So, because dinosaurs' closest relatives are crocodiles and birds, it makes sense that their blood cells would have been nucleated."

NOVA | scienceNOW | T. Rex Blood? Ask the Expert | PBS

That's her theistic evolutionist way of saying, "It looks like a duck.." (red blood cells) "and it quacks like a duck " (in soft tissue 65 million yrs old, for heavens sake!) but I don't want it to be red blood cells because of my belief in evolution and that dino's died out over 60 million yrs ago so it doesn't fit the facts that I wish to believe in."

But no matter how one cuts it, no soft tissue in ANY organism is going to last for 65 million yrs. Quite frankly, they are lying to us about the dates.

 

[Mallon]

That's her theistic evolutionist way of saying, "It looks like a duck.." (red blood cells) "and it quacks like a duck " (in soft tissue 65 million yrs old, for heavens sake!) but I don't want it to be red blood cells because of my belief in evolution and that dino's died out over 60 million yrs ago so it doesn't fit the facts that I wish to believe in."
But no matter how one cuts it, no soft tissue in ANY organism is going to last for 65 million yrs. Quite frankly, they are lying to us about the dates.

All of C4's misrepresentations of Mary's findings are clarified here:
CC371: Tyrannosaurus blood
CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone

 

[bibleblevr]

I'm not sure what you're asking, here.

Basically, why were the dinosaurs fossilized but not the buffalo.

The YEC answer seems to be because the buffalo's bones where eroded away, and the dinosaur's bones were caught in the flood.

 

[Mallon]

Basically, why were the dinosaurs fossilized but not the buffalo.

That question doesn't even make sense from a YEC perspective. If buffalo existed at the time of Noah's Flood, then their bones should be mixed in with those of the dinosaurs. They're not. Buffalo bones do occur as sub-fossils in the top-most layers of the rock record, though. See here:

 

[philadiddle]

Biblebeliever this is to you and not Mallon:



He isn't telling the truth...again.





This is what Mary Schwietzer actually said about it: "Well, there are small, red structures within the vessels that look like nucleated red cells. So on the surface, this is a case of "if it looks like a duck…." But after 70 million years, just because something looks familiar doesn't mean that that is what it is. The fossil record can mimic many things, so without doing the chemistry to show that there are similarities to blood cells at the molecular level, I do not make any claims that they are cells.

However, we do know that, except for mammals, all living vertebrates (fish, frogs, birds, and reptiles) have nucleated red blood cells in circulation. Mammals are unique in having their blood cells "spit out" the nucleus before they go into circulation (unless there is a disease). So, because dinosaurs' closest relatives are crocodiles and birds, it makes sense that their blood cells would have been nucleated."

NOVA | scienceNOW | T. Rex Blood? Ask the Expert | PBS

That's her theistic evolutionist way of saying, "It looks like a duck.." (red blood cells) "and it quacks like a duck " (in soft tissue 65 million yrs old, for heavens sake!) but I don't want it to be red blood cells because of my belief in evolution and that dino's died out over 60 million yrs ago so it doesn't fit the facts that I wish to believe in."

But no matter how one cuts it, no soft tissue in ANY organism is going to last for 65 million yrs. Quite frankly, they are lying to us about the dates.

YouTube - Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked

 

[Calypsis4]

All of C4's misrepresentations of Mary's findings are clarified here:
NOVA | scienceNOW | T. Rex Blood? Ask the Expert | PBS
CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone

There were no 'misrepresentations'. I'll admit I really, really get tired of the lies. What Mary Schweitzer discovered is an emabarrasing fact that flies in the very face of evolution AND...it would never have made the news like it did in the first place if it weren't for the fact that the soft tissue she found did not upset the evolutionary expectations in terms of the time element.

But let me go back to the very source:

Quote - "The labs conducted tests independently that supported the idea that the hadrosaur, like the T. rex, contained transparent, hollow, flexible vessels, according to the Science article. Some vessels contained cell-like structures, while others contained a red substance that looked like degraded blood from an ostrich."



And what did the evolutionist article that produce the amazing picture above have to say? Quote - "Mary Schweitzer who amazed us by discovering remains of soft tissue in dinosaur bones has been continuing to make new discoveries. NOVA Science Now is going to broadcast a special on July 17th on the possibility that Dr. Schweitzer has discovered the remains of Tyrannosaurus Rex blood."

http://www.huginn.com/knuth/blog/2007/07/14/tyrannosaurus-rex-blood/

The theistic evolutionists on this thread are not...telling...the truth.

Furthermore, it seems that Mary Schweitzer is no more honest about this matter than her evolutionist comrades for instead of admitting that the dates of such T-Rex findings are in error and the Bible she claims to believe in is correct after all...she moves the goal posts and claims that nature COULD after all, preserve such soft-tissue for 68 million yrs! Talk about tortured logic!

Quote - "The labs conducted tests independently that supported the idea that the hadrosaur, like the T. rex, contained transparent, hollow, flexible vessels, according to the Science article. Some vessels contained cell-like structures, while others contained a red substance that looked like degraded blood from an ostrich."

MSU News Service - Malta bone, MSU scientists help confirm protein findings in dinosaurs

But to support what I said about the evolutionists moving the goal posts:

Quote - "CBS’s 60 Minutes finally broke the news to a broader audience. The soft tissue issue may be gaining more traction, and even “may be changing the whole dino ballgame,” according to correspondent Lesley Stahl.

The program is currently viewable online at the CBS website. In a field test demonstration to determine whether a dinosaur fossil was real bone, and not bone replaced by minerals, Stahl touched her tongue to it. It stuck like Velcro. She then asked paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, “This is 80 million years old and it can do that?” “Yes,” Schweitzer said confidently.

In demonstrating that dinosaur bones still somehow contained soft, bendable tissues after all these eons, Schweitzer and her former mentor Jack Horner have been subjected to “one of the biggest controversies paleontology has seen in years.”

This resulted from Schweitzer’s unexpected discovery in 2000 of “elastic, like living tissue” from inside the femur of a recently excavated Tyrannosaurus fossil nicknamed “B. rex.” 60 Minutes reported, “It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone. This was impossible. This bone was 68 million years old!”

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Finally Makes News

And why is it 'impossible'? Aw, gee, folks, we're not supposed to ask that question of the wizards of Darwinian genius and higher education. That's a 'no, no'. But evolutionists across the country were so upset with this find that some claimed that Schwietzers find was contaminated or that she mishandled the evidence.

Yet, quote - "Stahl (of CBS) stated that 'being a fossil, there should have been nothing left. But there was.' Thus, 'blood vessels, and even what seemed to be intact cells, pose a radical challenge to the existing rules of science―that organic material can’t possibly survive even a million years, let alone 68 million.'

"But it is not some arbitrary 'rule of science' that dictates that flesh usually rots quickly. It is extremely well established by common observation, as well as by decades of easily repeatable experiments, such as those measuring protein decay that occurs in mere days." (ibid)

And theistic evolutionists call this 'science'.

We don't believe them.

But if any of you out there really believe that soft tissue could survive 68 million years...well, I've got this bridge I'd like to sell you.

 

[Calypsis4]

YouTube - Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked

I thought I recognized that voice. It's that maniac, thunderfoot on You Tube.

For you honest readers: just read the things I have quoted since last night concerning Mary Schweitzers own words admitting the blood content of the soft tissue.

 

[Calypsis4]

Basically, why were the dinosaurs fossilized but not the buffalo.

The YEC answer seems to be because the buffalo's bones where eroded away, and the dinosaur's bones were caught in the flood.

Huh?

What are you talking about? No buffalo fossils? Then what is this?



Giant Buffalo Ancient Fossils found in Blora - Indonesia>> Extreme media>> extreme, unique, strange, extreme human, extreme style, extreme world, extreme picture, fashions, artist

What's this?

WholesaleFossils.com presented by EXTINCTIONS Inc.&​

Perhaps you need to look again on this issue, dear friend.​

 

[Calypsis4]

That's the stamp, C4. That's the piece they used to press into the clay (bulla) to flatten it. I posted pictures of the bullae themselves above, which is what Job compared the shape of the earth to. You've got it backwards.

I had thought that common logic would dictate that this matter was answered but some are stubborn.

One more time: Here is the verse in question, quote - ""That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment." Job 38:13-14.

Where does this verse say the world is flat? Where is the word flat even used?

But let's take Mallon's point of view for granted and hypothetically agree with him for the sake of revealing just how ludicrous it is.

1. Who did the author of Job quote in that verse?

Answer: God Himself. In fact, according to Job 38 God had been speaking every word from verse 2 and continues throughout the chapter!

2. What does this imply? Mallon's position is that, therefore, God lied to Job and claimed the world was flat...full knowing otherwise.

I have already demonstrated by both illustration and quotation of Jewish sources that ancient Israeli seals were not always flat. Why would one insist then that the surface of such as clay was therefore flat?



This seal certainly isn't flat. But then neither is this object of (guess what?)...clay!



But Mallon misses the point of what the Holy Spirit was bringing to us in the first place: God is the One who forms the features of the earth (i.e. seals the clay) and not the accidental forces of nature.

Finally, this statement by 19th century Bible scholars on the verse:

Quote - "turned--(Hebrew, "turns itself") alludes to the rolling cylinder seal, such as is found in Babylon, which leaves its impressions on the clay, as it is turned about; so the morning light rolling on over the earth."
Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown Commentary on the Bible.

That the Lord inspired the author of Job to use an analogy by symbolism is very plain to see. The eternal truth of the matter is that no man nor the blind forces of nature can do to the earths surface what only the Lord can do. Nature is directed by its Creator, it doesn't act blindly.

Further comment on this issue merely becomes redundant.

P.S. not one of the nine classic commentaries (i.e. Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, John Wesley) I looked up this reference suggested that this verse teaches a flat earth.

 

[mark kennedy]

Let me be more specific then. Let's take this quote from one of the links you gave:
Note, I do not know a single TE who believes in "God of the Gaps". Every single TE I know believes in God as the prime cause of all things. Every single TE I know believes that God works purposefully through both nature AND the supernatural. To a TE, it doesn't matter if there is a natural explanation for a phenomena or not, because either way it is the method God used to create, and either way was done with full intent an purpose.

There is no God of the Gaps, it's a clutch phrase. There is a profound lack of transitional fossils and molecular mechanisms capable of making the many giant leaps evolution would require. TEs while professing faith have nothing to say in defense of Scripture, at least none that I am acquainted with. What is more the mark of TEs I have encountered in cyberspace is that they attack creationists, with or without a theological or scientific basis. The vast majority of the time it's a string of personal attacks seasoned with whatever sciences they dabble in.

I am aware of the concept of divine providence and that was not the intent of Moses when he wrote Genesis. This is about the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, nothing more. I have examined the evidence for evolution and invariably there is more assumption then proof.

In fact, what AiG seems to be saying here is, "TE doesn't allow for large enough gaps in natural law for God to have had any significant role in creation". How in the world is that mindset itself not "God of the gaps"?

I could tear apart the other 9 points they make in a similar fashion.

AiG seems to neither know us nor understand us. If they do, then they are liars. If they do not, then they are lazy. Either way is intellectually and ethically dishonest.

I think what you are doing is unconscionable, nothing in your discussion warrants the flagrant string of insults that make up the bulk of your statement.

Let me put it this way: I expect the world to be full of liars and dishonest people. I expect far more than that from God's people. Every piece of data needs to encounter a healthy bit of skepticism; however, even if you are absolutely right here, I suspect that it means far less than what you would imply.

Ok, stop right there. You are free to question my statements but you have no call to question my motives. I asked you a straightforward question with the actual evidence before you and you refused to look at it. Let's try this again and we can dispense with this pretentious, 'if you are absolutely right', nonsense.

Is the statement, 'chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA with humans', true or false? That is a straightforward question and I quoted, cited and linked the paper so you cannot pretend you don't have the answer in front of you. You want to moralize about dishonest arguments and misstatements of fact then show me you have the courage of your convictions and answer the question based on the actual evidence.

I will apologize, I did engage in a little bit of drama in that last post. I do not reject YEC because of sites like AiG; I reject it because neither science nor scripture support its claims (and if you need detail, I've addressed one topic in particular - death before the fall - in another post, and no YEC's posted to defend it).

Probably because it's not an issue and most of the Creationists that come on here are run off by the endless string of personal attacks.

However, I have very little respect for AiG and ICR. I love how BioLogos allows dissenting opinions in their discussion boards; I love how they offer scholars with dissenting opinions to submit articles that are presented unedited and without editorial comment. AiG may present a dissenting opinion, but always paraphrased with plenty of "why this is wrong" comments wrapped around it. BioLogos is confident in the Truth and that it will win. AiG does not display the same confidence.

AIG is attacked because it's creationist, that is the only reason. Christians are not attacking science, scientists are inciting a mob psychology and unstable people get caught up in the drama. I have yet to see one of these slanderous accusations stand up to close scrutiny and what is more, the TEs that come on here talk in generalities, in circles, endlessly. You did not learn this from the Christian faith, the Bible or the Holy Spirit, you learned this from Darwinians.

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12.2)​

Do not that these are commandments, not suggestions.

If you have an issue with something specific then I will be happy to hear you out. Just one condition, answer the question the way any honest seeker of truth would with the facts in front of them.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Seals from the time of the Hebrews were typically made by stamping clay with a signet. That is, the clay was stamped flat, like this:

That's how Job describes the formation of the earth.

The object on this "stamp" is NOT flat. It has relief.
Ancient people do not have the idea of a "flat" stamp.

May be you can dig up an ancient stamp of the earth. We will see if it is a flat earth. If there were no such stamp, then why would Job say it? A function of stamp is to reproduce copies quickly. Where are other copies of the earth according to Job? How could Job even have this crazy idea?

Only if we see the modern view of planets and stars, then we can see what Job is talking about.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Are people still arguing that a circle = a sphere?

The object on this "stamp" is NOT flat. It has relief.
Ancient people do not have the idea of a "flat" stamp.

It's not like a flat earth was ever envisioned to be completely 2D. It was still 3D, but more like a giant disc in space rather than a sphere.