Creation evidence?

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Shimon
Morat asked me to "Let [him] know if can find five who have a serious problem with evolution and work in a related field... " I did just that.

I'm sorry.... I didn't see the first in your 3 posts. I only saw the second and third... I haven't critically examined the list, but I did look at the first one in your first post:

H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

I see that he is speaking about biological evolution. That doesn't satisfy the requirement of "working in a related field", since he is apparently a physicist.

I've already done that.
Shimon [/B]

Indeed you have, and I ask your pardon for being so slow to address each of the claims of evidence you have made. I thank others for pointing out that you haven't presented evidence, but an assertion that evidence exists in some of these cases (for instance - the earth, or Io cools too quickly for them to have the ages assigned to them by astronomical and geological theories, yet retain their current heat... you haven't shown evidence that this is the case: only asserted that there is such evidence)...

Nevertheless, as time, and other arguments on this board allow, I will go on to #2 on your list and continue until I have finished with them. On cursory examination I did not see any evidence that truly does support sudden creation (assuming that is the model you are working from), or any that actually falsifies evolution - or even casts more than fleeting doubts on it.

My apologies for misunderstanding your 'quote' posts as 'evidence' posts.

Jerry

 

[Shimon]

chickenman:

I don't agree with your point that creation is equally valid, the evidence is in evolution's favour

And I believe I have proven that it is not. I've provided evidence for Creation and I have provided evidence that even Evolutionists don't believe in Evolution.


Shimon

 

[Shimon]

Jerry Smith:

Indeed you have, and I ask your pardon for being so slow to address each of the claims of evidence you have made.

The evidence for Creation can be refuted by Evolutionists and the evidence for Evolution can be refuted by Creationists. The simple fact that evidence can be refuted does not make the evidence become non-evidence. It merely means that it is refuted as evidence. I'm not out of prove Creation, my only point is that it is a valid theory and Evolution should not be taught to the exclusion of valid alternatives. And, the quotes that I've provided from various scientists seem to agree.


Shimon

 

[Jerry Smith]

(2) Oil found in the ground is under a tremendous pressure – up to 20,000 pounds per square inch. Geologists claim that the rock can only hold that pressure for 10,000 years or less.

There is no evidence here, only assertions about what geologists claim. If the assertion that "rock can only hold that pressure for 10,000 years or less" is true, then we have evidence that coal found at that pressure has been in the rocks where it is found for less than 10,000 years. As far as I can tell, this doesn't tell us anything about any of the following:
a) the age of the earth
b) the origin of life on earth
c) the history of life on earth
d) the origin of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or the universe - or any of their ages.

Perhaps you could
1) Prove the assertion about what geologists claim, and
2) show how that bears on your theory of creation or any relevant scientific theory

Until you do those things, we cannot count your second point as having any bearing one way or the other.

 

[David Gould]

Like some others here, I really would like to see the name, publisher and date of publication of the text book that uses Nebraska man as evidence for evolution.

Or an admission the claim for such a textbook is false. Either one would be great.

 

[chickenman]

you haven't provided information that evolutionists don't believe in evolution (that seems to be a logical impossibility) - perhaps you meant that you showed that even biologists don't believe in evolution - you need to qualify that by saying that approximately 1 percent of them question evolution (thats in america, i'd think it would be even smaller in other western nations)

 

[Jerry Smith]

(3) Galaxies are groups of stars that are spinning. The stars near the center are spinning faster than the star on the outside. So, if the universe were “billions of years old,” the galaxies would not have spiral arms.

1) You seem to have evidence that spiral galaxies might not be billions of years old, but you have neglected to correlate this to the age of the universe in any meaningful way.
2) the rotation speed patterns of spiral galaxies is explained here, in a manner consistent with ancient galaxies and, not inconsistent with an even more ancient universe:
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~spac250/elio/spac.html

 

[Jerry Smith]

Bed-time, Shimon. Please have patience. With life, work, and the other threads on this board, I may be a while to finish working through your list of evidence for creation.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Shimon,

I take it that you have read every single work that these quotes appear in, since you haven't provided a reference for where you got them.

Do you stake your personal credibility on the accuracy of their content? If not, who originally compiled this list of quotes? If you don't give a source for the list, then any accusations of false witness will fall on you.

 

[Shimon]

David Gould:

Like some others here, I really would like to see the name, publisher and date of publication of the text book that uses Nebraska man as evidence for evolution.

Or an admission the claim for such a textbook is false. Either one would be great.

I've already said this:

It's what I was taught when I attended school several decades after Nebraska Man was proven false. I don't still have the textbook I used as a schoolboy. If it's not in the textbooks *today* then it's not in the textbooks today.

Was that not written in clear-enough English? Do I need to break it down for you?


Shimon

 

[Shimon]

Jerry Smith:

1) You seem to have evidence that spiral galaxies might not be billions of years old, but you have neglected to correlate this to the age of the universe in any meaningful way.
2) the rotation speed patterns of spiral galaxies is explained here, in a manner consistent with ancient galaxies and, not inconsistent with an even more ancient universe:

I think I've provided better evidence than Evolutionists who date the fossils by the geologic layers they are contained in, and who date the geologic layers by the fossils they contain.


Shimon

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Shimon
I think I've provided better evidence than Evolutionists who date the fossils by the geologic layers they are contained in, and who date the geologic layers by the fossils they contain.

Provide a single scientific paper that uses such circular techniques. I'm talking hard data: a reference and discussion to support that that is what is going on.

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by Shimon
David Gould:



I've already said this:



Was that not written in clear-enough English? Do I need to break it down for you?


Shimon

I must have missed that. I apologise. You have retracted your claim that it is still appearing in text books as evidence.

Thanks.

 

[randman]

For the evolutionists here, when I visit now I generally just skim or skip over your posts as they seem to always be the same dodge of the issues, and that is why I haven't posted recently, but I do enjoy reading Nick's superb treatment and analysis.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shimon

I think I've provided better evidence than Evolutionists who date the fossils by the geologic layers they are contained in, and who date the geologic layers by the fossils they contain.

Oddly, carbon dating *does* work on straw men. I'd peg this one at around 125 years, give or take.

 

[Shimon]

seebs:

Oddly, carbon dating *does* work on straw men. I'd peg this one at around 125 years, give or take.

Actually, carbon dating is only accurate in dating objects that are a few thousand years old, it is *not* accurate in dating objects that are "millions" or "billions" of years old.

In any event, it was not my intention to get into a Creation vs. Evolution debate with a group of atheists and agnostics. My reason for joining this board was to discuss various biblical issues with other believers in Messiah and to grow in Messiah.

This thread was only the first or second that I had posted in, and I had assumed you were a believer who had accepted Evolution as G-d's method of Creation. I had no idea there were so many non-believers on this board. I don't have the ability to change men's hearts, only G-d can do that.


Shimon

 

[DrLao]

Originally posted by Shimon
Actually, carbon dating is only accurate in dating objects that are a few thousand years old, it is *not* accurate in dating objects that are "millions" or "billions" of years old.

I'm sure seebs is well aware. He is talking about dating your straw-man argument. I hate having to explain jokes.

In any event, it was not my intention to get into a Creation vs. Evolution debate with a group of atheists and agnostics. My reason for joining this board was to discuss various biblical issues with other believers in Messiah and to grow in Messiah.

I think you may be in the wrong forum then. There are tons of Christian-only forums on this board.

 

[randman]

Shimon, the atheist/agnostic evolutionists tend to roam the Net looking for ways to denigrate Christ and spread the gospel of evolutionism.

 

[Shimon]

DrLao:

I think you may be in the wrong forum then. There are tons of Christian-only forums on this board.

What I'm saying though is that I didn't know that at the time I first posted in this thread. It was only my first or second-ever post on this board.


Shimon

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shimon

Actually, carbon dating is only accurate in dating objects that are a few thousand years old, it is *not* accurate in dating objects that are "millions" or "billions" of years old.

I was making a comment about your attack on "circular" dating systems, which is based on a straw man - a false representation of the actual way in which dating works. This particular attack is probably around 125 years old, and has only gotten weaker with time.

In any event, it was not my intention to get into a Creation vs. Evolution debate with a group of atheists and agnostics. My reason for joining this board was to discuss various biblical issues with other believers in Messiah and to grow in Messiah.

Well, all I can say is, you will probably want to stay out of the "Open Discussion & Debate" parts of the board. If I had any concerns about the effect atheists would have on my faith, I probably wouldn't be here...

This thread was only the first or second that I had posted in, and I had assumed you were a believer who had accepted Evolution as G-d's method of Creation. I had no idea there were so many non-believers on this board. I don't have the ability to change men's hearts, only G-d can do that.

God has changed my heart in many ways, but never has He asked me to turn away from the truth and glory of His creation.

I am, indeed, a believer. However, this does not compell me to agree with the comment about how you think dating methods are circular; there are plenty of papers written exploring how the dating works, and it's not really circular.