Creation or Evolution?

[Ishmael Borg]

Ish:

They're not OUR scientists. They're just scientists.

F.o.C.:

so they DO beleive in a 6 day creation then.......whew....

Ish:

How you got that out of what I posted is beyond me. Care to explain?

Still no response. Hmmm. This guy's wronging me all over the place. (Repeats CF mantra to self: "no flaming, no flaming, no flaming...".)

 

[Gracchus]

I should get a copy of that. Then if I have trouble sleeping I could read it and I am sure it would put me right to sleep.

God forbid you should listen to what an evolutionary biologist, eminent in his field, has to say about evolution. But it might actually WAKE YOU UP! But no. That is extremely unlikely. You are too fond of symbolically fractured dreams.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Ish:

F.o.C.:

Ish:

Still no response. Hmmm. This guy's wronging me all over the place. (Repeats CF mantra to self: "no flaming, no flaming, no flaming...".)

response?

YOull have to forgive me......
Im in trying to keep up with the different threads and talking to someone on IM here......

what were you looking for a response to?

As for wronging you, Im not sure I know what you mean....
Am I not being just as abrupt as many others ?
Do you feel Im singling you out or something?
If thats the case, just look around.......folks like Poe and Arikay have been much more the target of my insane rantings than you have

 

[Ishmael Borg]

response?

YOull have to forgive me......
Im in trying to keep up with the different threads and talking to someone on IM here......

what were you looking for a response to?

As for wronging you, Im not sure I know what you mean....
Am I not being just as abrupt as many others ?
Do you feel Im singling you out or something?
If thats the case, just look around.......folks like Poe and Arikay have been much more the target of my insane rantings than you have

You will stop at nothing, I see. No, I don't feel singled out. You put words in many posters' mouths. How about addressing my original question, huh? The lurkers might respect honesty as much as hyperbole- you never know.

 

[Follower of Christ]

You will stop at nothing, I see. No, I don't feel singled out. You put words in many posters' mouths. How about addressing my original question, huh? The lurkers might respect honesty as much as hyperbole- you never know.

ok......Ill ask again...

what were you looking for a response to?

 

[lucaspa]

Little question

The scientific evidence is AGAINST virgin birth

How is the scientific evidence against virgin birth?

 

[lucaspa]

But being an evolutionist will destroy your case for Christ (I might comment on that later if anyone questions the statement).

I question the statement. How does being an evolutionist affect Christ?

Anyways, it is impossible to be a evolutionist-creationist, a.k.a Old Earth Creationist.

Interesting definition. Since evolution is about the origin of species, an OEC is not an "evolutionist" since all forms of OEC that I am aware of still have God zapping species into existence in their present form.

A true creationist believes in the literal 7-day creation of the universe. Anything else is Biblically absurd and wrong. The Bible states a without a doubt, no 'interpretation' needed, simple to read account of the Creation.

The Bible also states, in Genesis 2:4, that the universe was created in a single day -- "in the day God created the heavens and the earth". So, which one is right. Since they contradict, it shows that both of them are not meant to be read literallly. A literal reading is absurd and wrong.

Much scientific data has been gathered that indicates a young earth (young meaning less than millions of years old). I'm just going to list a FEW things and can explain their significance later if desired.

The problem is that you can find evidence for any theory if that is what you are looking for. That's why what really counts is the evidence that falsifies an idea. A young earth was falsified by 1820, long before Darwin even thought about evoluton.

1) the shrinking sun
2) the layer of cosmic dust on the moon
3) Fossil meteorites
4) the receding moon
5) short-lived isotopes (such as U-236 and Th-230)
6) decaying magnetic field of the earth
7) amount of Helium 4
8) the erosion rates of continents
9) the erosion of geological foundations

All of these have been dealt with in other places. Some -- such as lunar dust -- are even in Answers in Genesis' list of invalid arguments: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

But we can discuss each in as much detail as you like. Let's start with #1.

I presume you mean the accumulation of meteoric dust described in a Scientific American article in 1959. The author, Hans Pettersson, made his measurements from a high mountain in Hawaii. Unfortunately, he also counted some volcanic ash. In the time since, we have several satellites circling the earth. NASA has made many measurements from many satellites using different types of instruments. They all point to an accumulation of 10~-16 to 10~-17 grams of dust per square centimeter per second. Now to calculate how much dust we would expect on a 5 billion year old moon. 5 billion years == 10~17 seconds. maximum dust accumulation over 5 billion years = 10~-16 grams/square cm-sec x 10~17 sec = 10 grams/square cm. How much dust is on the moon?. The density of dust varies but let's err on the conservative side and take a density of 1gm/cm cubed (the density of water and higher than the density of dust). We would expect the layer of 10 grams/squar cm to make a layer 10 cm high. The surface of the moon is covered by a debris blanket (regolith) that varies from 5 to 10 meters thick. The regolith is formed by meterorites that pulverize the lunar surface and meteoric dust. The amount of the regolith that is meteroric dust can be determined from its elemental composition. The amount of dust is about 1.5%. 1.5% of 10 meters is 15 cm. That corresponds to the 10 cm we calculated. The moon is old, not young.

 

[lucaspa]

Just a bit of advice, EVEN if you were to present something they dont already consider ''refuted'' because of the way they interpret evidence, Im sure it would be buried in a pile of insults and rhetoric.....

I admire your fire for Gods word, but youre going to find very quickly that the FACTS arent on our side here....... not because they truely are not, but because the evolutionist only considers THEIR ''scientist'' able to properly interpret the data....

FoC, I see you have the creationist duck: how evidence is "interpreted". What you haven't shown is just how and why the evidence is "interpreted" differently.

All evidence is interpreted in the same way: in relation to the hypothesis being tested. That is, is the evidence what is deduced from the hypothesis or is it opposite to what is deduced?

Now, every example in the list has data that is against the hypothesis. For instance, the hypothesis is that magnetic fields only decline until they are gone. But the data shows that magnetic fields reverse. Thus, the hypothesis that the declining magnetic field of the earth shows a young earth is falsified because the evidence that magnetic fields reverse.

But the idea of "interpretation" is very clever -- as long as you don't look at the details and see what actually happens. Of course, when you do that the idea of "interpretation" falls apart, so I guess you have an emotional stake in not looking closely.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

ok......Ill ask again...

what were you looking for a response to?

Who has time to counter your -ahem- dung? You provided us a complete non-sequitor in post #31 of this thread, in response to my post. You seemed to differentiate between evolutionist's "scientists" and the ones who support your p.o.v..

Prompted by your amnesia, I'm going to rephrase my question: please list the scientists who subscribe to your p.o.v.; then calculate the overall percentage of those who subscribe to your p.o.v. out of all mainstream scientists. If they don't agree, what's wrong with the dissenters?

 

[Follower of Christ]

All evidence is interpreted in the same way: in relation to the hypothesis being tested

Precisely........you are biased going in...

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Who has time to counter your -ahem- dung? You provided us a complete non-sequitor in post #31 of this thread, in response to my post. You seemed to differentiate between evolutionist's "scientists" and the ones who support your p.o.v..

Prompted by your amnesia, I'm going to rephrase my question: please list the scientists who subscribe to your p.o.v.; then calculate the overall percentage of those who subscribe to your p.o.v. out of all mainstream scientists. If they don't agree, what's wrong with the dissenters?

Still waiting...

 

[Follower of Christ]

Still waiting...

hmmm.....
er....
uh......
gee....

Kent Hovind???

 

[Arikay]

I'm still waiting for FoC to show me how to reinterpret the short lived isotope refutation to fit creationist claims. But im not holding my breath because I doubt it will ever be heard, because creationists seem to be big on claims, small on follow through.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I'm still waiting for FoC to show me how to reinterpret the sort lived isotope refutation to fight creationist claims. But im not holding my breath because I doubt it will ever be heard, because creationists seem to be big on claims, small on follow through.

Interesting......does this isotope PROVE ABSOLUTELY that it wasnt 6 literal days?
Ill be it doesnt

 

[Ishmael Borg]

hmmm.....
er....
uh......
gee....

Kent Hovind???

Real seekers of truth see through you. Hovind? Not even the most deluded will HONESTLY allude to him. Try again, truth-mocker.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Real seekers of truth see through you. Hovind? Not even the most deluded will HONESTLY allude to him. Try again, truth-mocker.

Ill bet youre the only one here who took that at face value
I have at many points shown that I dont follow Hovinds tripe teachings

 

[Arikay]

And im glad I didn't hold my breath, since you apparently don't even understand these arguments that you claim are just being "interpreted differently" let alone have the creationist interpretation for the refutations.

Interesting......does this isotope PROVE ABSOLUTELY that it wasnt 6 literal days?
Ill be it doesnt

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Ill bet youre the only one here who took that at face value
I have at many points shown that I dont follow Hovinds tripe teachings

I guess we've been had again (snicker, snicker).

 

[Follower of Christ]

I guess we've been had again (snicker, snicker).

ah.....try to lighten up.......

Youve got to learn to take my type in stride or youll spend your life being upset.....

 

[Ishmael Borg]

ah.....try to lighten up.......

Youve got to learn to take my type in stride or youll spend your life being upset.....

On a lighter note, we're here, so we have more in common than most folks on this "circle". Nothing on this forum will "upset" me in my real life, so I have little to learn in that area. I have "faith" that you're a good guy. It's a mystery; I don't know why.

It would probably be shocking to you to discover how little the mysteries you deem holy mean to me. But they mean little. The world is what it is. Our separate explanations suffice. I don't want to convince you. Believe me.