Debate....

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 01:01 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #63
At what point did I say I didnt look at the evidence.

You said you automatically ignore any evidence that contradicts your fallible interpretation of the Bible.

There is nothing to refute. YOUR evidence fits nicley into my young earth faith for the most part. That which doesnt, isnt that big of a deal for me.

Except it IS a huge deal because it clearly refutes your young earth model. The evidence does not fit into your young earth model. Again, here are features that cannot exist on a young earth and/or cannot be the result of a global flooding event:

my thread on twelve features of the Grand Canyon that cannot exist in a Young Earth, flood geology scanario

notto's thread on the Hawaiian Island Chain

ardipithecus' thread on angular unconformities

my thread on varve deposits

and arikay's thread on the mathematical problems with the flood model

I have looked very carefully at the majority of the evidence (probably missed some tho) and it has left me believing my biblical account even more than before.
You ''evidence'' is, in a way, what pushed me into believing in a young earth.

If this is true, then you are not being honest. With regard to the features listed above, one cannot honestly answer the questions "how old is the earth?" and "did the earth's geological features result from a global flood?" by saying that the earth is young and a worldwide flooding event occurred. The evidence doesn't show it, and there is evidence that refutes it. To claim otherwise is dishonesty.

Fraudulent claims and evidence by any evolutionist would not prove Young Earth. I dont claim that they do.
As far as I know, there would be no separate evidence for a young earth.

The theory of evolution is irrelavent to geological claims of an old earth unless you are doing field biostratigraphy using index fossils. You are throwing around the word "evolutionist" and placing it where it is irrelavent. One does not have to accept the theory of evolution to accept that the earth is very old. Geologists (who were Christians, by the way) determined that the earth must be very old based upon features like unconformities even before the theory of evolution came along.

Its a matter of how that proof is interpreted and whether or not we accept dating methods as reliable(I do not, after seeing both sides of the issue).

Dating methods have not been shown to be unreliable. The people who make those claims use the dating method outside of their known limitations. That, in no way, invalidates them. The simple fact that the dating methods can be cross referenced with each other shows that they are indeed accurate. I would go so far as to say that you probably don't know how many of the dating methods actually work--instead, you just arbitrarily disregard them out of a dishonest examination of them. Of course that's a guess, but it's actually very common among YECists.

It doesnt take a brain surgeon to do a web search to look for fraud, it just a few correctly spelled words and clicking the search button.
It does however take a desire to know truth. 

Yes, it does take a desire to know truth. You do not have that desire, apparently. You seem to be claiming that "evolutionists" have some sort of agenda. We do not. You are the one operating to serve an agenda: your religious beliefs. You are operating under the assumption that you already know the "truth" that the earth is only a few thousand years old regardless of the actual evidence. Have you studied the basics of geology even? Of course your web search is going to show "fraud" when you look only for creationist websites rather than looking in peer-reviewed journals.

 

[lithium.]

28th March 2003 at 10:06 PM Arikay said this in Post #32

And this is why a debate on the subject is hard.

Yep.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 12:08 PM lucaspa said this in Post #74



FoC, this doesn't help us. Because creationism uses "kind" as the boundary past which changes will not go.  If that is the case, there should be very sharp delineations between "kinds" and never, never have animals with characteristics of two different kinds.

Do you agree or disagree with Duane Gish's definition of kinds (and if you don't know, Gish is a YEC and author of The Fossils Say NO!)  So I've picked a creationist with impeccable credentials as a creationist.



 

After some checking, I would have to say I probably do agree with ''kinds'' as presented in his ''definition"

I also saw some comments on a site that presented the question of how many original ''kinds'' were there?

This is the most preposterous and deceptive line of questioning.
OBVIOUSLY there would be no absolute answer from either side to this type of inquiry, only speculation.
It is this type of questioning that is very misleading as it means nothing when one cannot give an accurate answer.

Do we know what exact kinds were on the Ark or in the Creation days. NO.

Do you know how many types of fish existed ''1 million" years ago? NO.

It is impossible for ust to say what exact ''kind'' of animal a horse came from and if there may or may not have been another horse-like animal that a Zebra came from.
It would take us claiming omnipotence to say that we know for sure every animal represented on the Ark.

This is exactly the type of loaded questioning I would have expected to see.

One other thing. I do not consider evolutionists atheists as a whole.

I do however consider evolution to be religion as its only real basis is it is yet unfalsified (give it time), which PROVES nothing. It is taken on faith based on observation.
Just as I base my faith on my observations.

 

[Jon]

planet on the day of the Flood

It was actually 40 days and 40 nights.

Genesis 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

What kind of things have falsified the flood? Could you please give some examples.

 

[LadyShea]

Jon, please read other threads in this forum, the Flood has been discussed many times and falsifications presented. There was no GLOBAL flood, though a large but still regional flood is probable.

 

[lithium.]

Today at 10:33 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #66




Jeez, I dont know at what point I am allowed to use words like ''dense'' in here but....

THERE PROBABLY IS NO SEPARATE EVIDENCE.
YOUR EVIDENCE FITS VERY NICELY INTO MY YOUNG EARTH.
ITS ALL IN HOW ITS INTERPRETED.

I wasnt yelling, merely using all caps to see if it would help you understand this time.

It seems like you love to say "your evidence fits nicely with my young earth". Well maybe you can show us the evidence you are talking about that fits nicely with young earth.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 12:58 PM seesaw said this in Post #86




It seems like you love to say "your evidence fits nicely with my young earth". Well maybe you can show us the evidence you are talking about that fits nicely with young earth.

Boy, you msut really think I have a lot of time on my hands.

Other than the starlight thing I am still pondering, maybe all of it (interpreted within the confines of scripture)

 

[lithium.]

foC,

I do however consider evolution to be religion as its only real basis is it is yet unfalsified (give it time), which PROVES nothing. It is taken on faith based on observation.
Just as I base my faith on my observations.

So does that mean all scientific theories are religions? Theory of Evolution is a religion then I guess Theory of Gravity is a religion also right?

 

[lithium.]

Today at 01:00 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #87


Boy, you msut really think I have a lot of time on my hands.

Other than the starlight thing I am still pondering, maybe all of it (interpreted within the confines of scripture)

You seem to have enough time on your hands to sit here on these forums saying that you believe (young earth) is right, but yeah I guess it's just to hard to find evidence to back you up.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 12:51 PM Jon said this in Post #84

What kind of things have falsified the flood? Could you please give some examples.

Salt deposits, angular unconformities, not enough water on earth, civilizations prospering during the alleged time of a global flooding event, varves, etc. The list truly does go on and on.

Simply read a few posts above your last post where I list several threads addressing individual features that falsify a global flood model for the formation of earth's geology.

 

[notto]

Today at 11:51 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #83

Do we know what exact kinds were on the Ark or in the Creation days. NO.

If we find it in the fossil record and this fossil record is supposed to be created by the flood, can't we assume that all of the animals killed in the flood would need to have their "kind" represented on the ark?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:33 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #66

THERE PROBABLY IS NO SEPARATE EVIDENCE.
YOUR EVIDENCE FITS VERY NICELY INTO MY YOUNG EARTH.
ITS ALL IN HOW ITS INTERPRETED.

I wasnt yelling, merely using all caps to see if it would help you understand this time.

You just admitted the bankruptcy of creationism.

IF creationism is correct, then there should be evidence that can only be explained by creationism.  This is standard deductive logic.  You have just admitted that you don't have any such data.

In another thread I posted the evidence we would expect to see if creationism were correct.  FoC, you never answered there.

Instead, perhaps you can try to explain it here.  Why do we see stars and galaxies thousands and millions of light years away?  Why do we find any fossils at all if all life is only 6,000 years old?  Why do we find that 90% of all land animals are extinct?  Why aren't all the bodies of sea life mixed together in the sediment at the bottom of the ocean?

 

[notto]

And what about those dinosaur egg nests and preserved dung?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:51 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #83

After some checking, I would have to say I probably do agree with ''kinds'' as presented in his ''definition"

Then let's look at it again.  Remember, Gish states "In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants which have been derived from a single stock.  We have cited some examples of varieties which we believe should be included within a single basic kind."

He then lists mammals as a basic kind.  But then he lists "duck-billed playtpuses, opossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men" as different kinds.

But this is makes no sense.  A "kinds" is a basic group.  So, if opossums, bats, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, apes, and men are different kinds, then they can't possibly belong to a "mammalian kind".  They are all separate creations.  The same applies when apes as split into "the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind."  If each of these is a basic kind, they can't belong to an "ape" kind, but must be separate creations. 

So, how do you explain that?

I also saw some comments on a site that presented the question of how many original ''kinds'' were there?

This is the most preposterous and deceptive line of questioning.
OBVIOUSLY there would be no absolute answer from either side to this type of inquiry, only speculation.

It's not obvious at all. Kinds should be very easy to distinguish. After all, there can be no connections between the basic kinds, if creationism is correct.  You should be able to count up all the places where change across boundaries can't occur, and those then delineate the basic kinds.  Why can't creationists do this?

For instance, let's go to playtpus.  Gish has it in the "mammalian kind".  But it lays eggs.  That is a characteristic of the bird, reptile, fish, and amphibian kinds.  How can a mammalian kind have a characteristic of a reptile kind if they are separate and no way to go across?

Do we know what exact kinds were on the Ark or in the Creation days. NO.

But if creationism is correct, we should, since there have been no new kinds since then.  Why can't creationists find those boundaries between kinds?

Do you know how many types of fish existed ''1 million" years ago? NO.

You mean orders?  Yes, we know that.  Families? Yes, we know that, too.  Genera and species?  Probably not, because we haven't searched the entire search space of all sediments where fish fossils could be that were laid down 1 million years ago.

It is impossible for ust to say what exact ''kind'' of animal a horse came from and if there may or may not have been another horse-like animal that a Zebra came from.

It should be possible.  After all, you should be able to tell if a zebra is a separate kind from a horse.  If they are really separate creations then a common ancestor can't give rise to both a zebra and a horse.  So there are boundaries in the genes that could not be crossed.  So why say it is "impossible"?

It would take us claiming omnipotence to say that we know for sure every animal represented on the Ark.

What, now you don't believe Scripure? It says clearly that a pair of every kind was taken on the Ark. 

One other thing. I do not consider evolutionists atheists as a whole.

That isn't what I said. I said "evolution" is not atheism.  I didn't say "evolutionists are not all atheists"

I do however consider evolution to be religion as its only real basis is it is yet unfalsified (give it time),

Evolution was/is falsifiable.  It's just that all attempts to falsify it have failed.   There is lots of evidence which, if it had turned out differently, would have falsified common ancestry or natural selection.

For instance, biogeography could have falsified evolution.  If the same type of animals found in the Cape St. Verde Islands were found on the Galapagos, then evolution would have been falsified and YEC supported. But it didn't turn out that way.  If all species were mixed together in the sediments-- T. rex with sabre-tooth tiger with modern tiger -- then evolution would have been falsified. Even today if mammalian fossils were found in the Cambrian it would falsify common ancestry.

It [evolution] is taken on faith based on observation.
Just as I base my faith on my observations.

Which faith are you referring to as "I base my faith"?  Your faith in the existence of God? Your faith that God created? Or your faith in creationism?

No scientific theory is "taken on faith".  None.  Yes, scientific theories are based on observations. And when the observations contradict the theory, the theory is discarded. 

You failed to comment on the following.  Would you please do so?

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:51 PM Jon said this in Post #84


It was actually 40 days and 40 nights.

Genesis 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

What kind of things have falsified the flood? Could you please give some examples.

But you don't get any new vegetation growing in that period, do you? After all, it's all being drowned in a Flood.  So, all you have for biomass to make all the oil is what is there at the start of the Flood.

As for falsification of the Flood, I gave some from Davis above.  Read it.  Mechanical Bliss gave threads with data falsifying the flood.

In addition to those:
1. Consider metamorphic rock again.  Can't have been formed in a Flood or in less than 6,000 years.
2. The volcanic cones in Auvergne, France.  The base of the cones is covered by sedimentary rock, therefore laid down during the Flood.  But the cones themselves are too fragile to withstand being covered with water; they would have collapsed.
3. The mile thick salt beds in Utah.  If they were there before Flood would have been dissolved.  Can't have been laid down by Flood or such salt deposits would be all over the earth as the Flood evaporated.
4. Ice cores in Greenland and Andes.  Over 50,000 years worth of annual layers.  A Flood would have melted some of the layers, done so unevenly, and thus have shown up in the cores.

 

[Jon]

The oil we are finding cannot be millions of years old:

From http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2
The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years. (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 37; 7)

What is wrong with this?

 

[Arikay]

See:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/pressure.html

And a refere to the base page: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/index.shtml

Today at 03:19 PM Jon said this in Post #96

The oil we are finding cannot be millions of years old:

What is wrong with this?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 06:19 PM Jon said this in Post #96

The oil we are finding cannot be millions of years old:

What is wrong with this?

For starters, your quote isn't on that page.  For another, if the references are correct, none of them are to the scientific literature, but only refer to other creationist publications.  Is repeating a false witness of others as bad as making that false witness in the first place?

For third, the rock is several hundred meters thick in most places. Where does Hovind decide that it won't hold the pressure? Certainly not from:
 McLean, G. S.; McLean, Larry; Oakland, Roger. The Bible Key to Understanding the Early Earth. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Southwest Radio Church, 1987
  Petersen, Dennis R. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. South Lake Tahoe, Calif.: Christian Equippers International, 1987.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 06:19 PM Jon said this in Post #96

The oil we are finding cannot be millions of years old:

What is wrong with this?

I see you've ducked the whole problem of the quantity of oil being produced from the biomass on the earth when the Flood started. Remember falsification?  It doesn't matter what evidence "for" you come up with after a theory has been falsified.  Since the theory is  false, you are now sure there is another explanation.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:03 PM seesaw said this in Post #89




You seem to have enough time on your hands to sit here on these forums saying that you believe (young earth) is right, but yeah I guess it's just to hard to find evidence to back you up.

Break out all your evidence.
There you go. ALL of it except the starlight problem.
Although I have seen a few interesting ideas on that too.