Do creationists critically examine their own ideas (re: creationism)?

[Astrophile]

Personally, I've always believed(since I've been told) that the Moon reflects the Sun's light. But, another poster seemed to suggest that it also has a light of its own, so I became interested.

If you look at the Moon through a telescope, it should be clear that the Moon does not shine by its own light. Near to the terminator, mountains and crater walls cast long dark shadows, and over a few hours you can watch the terminator moving as the Moon rotates to bring new areas into the sunlight or to send them into darkness. This would not happen if the Moon's surface was self-luminous.

 

[Astrophile]

Doesn't force imply power/energy.

According to The Penguin Dictionary of Physics (page 414), 'Work is done when a force moves its point of application. The amount of work is measured by the product of the force and the distance moved by the point of application in the direction of the force. Work is measured in joules, i.e. the work done when a force of 1 newton moves through a distance of 1 metre.' It follows that no work is done, and no energy or power is produced, if the point of application of the force is stationary.

 

[Tone]

According to The Penguin Dictionary of Physics (page 414), 'Work is done when a force moves its point of application. The amount of work is measured by the product of the force and the distance moved by the point of application in the direction of the force. Work is measured in joules, i.e. the work done when a force of 1 newton moves through a distance of 1 metre.' It follows that no work is done, and no energy or power is produced, if the point of application of the force is stationary.

So, is it potential energy?

 

[tas8831]

Its faith we live in, not ideas.

Sad.

 

[tas8831]

No, the point is to be with God the father and love him and worship him and praise him.

We are a family, not of truth, but love and forgiveness and understanding.

I do not know who told you what your telling me, but in Gods family, we worship out of love and faith, not truth.

In my experience, it is more out of fear.

 

[tas8831]

I studied science in school and saw the work of God even in the study of an eye, as it was with each part of the body. The incredible detail right down to the DNA, praises God for His ingenious ways and purpose in creating. This isn't a part here or there morphing without purpose. Right from the design to the creation, a enormous amount of thought went into the creative work. The more you see God in nature and all its parts the more you see how smart God is and how it is not possible without Him. From micro to macro, the Universe is of His creative work. I am in awe. If He said He did it in six days. I believe Him. I am not going to argue the six days 24 hours or 1 million years. Time is relative in God's world. Being in His court a day is like a thousands years in ours.

These are splendid platitudes, but devoid of any empirical foundation.
So your answer to the OP's question is a resounding NO.

 

[tas8831]

No, Genesis is word for word.

The morning and the evening was the first day.

The sun goes up in the morning, the sun goes down in the evening.

No twist there.

Except that this is false.

The sun sits there (relative to the earth). The earth rotates. The 'up and down' is essentially an illusion. An illusion that the men that wrote the bible were fooled by.

 

[visionary]

These are splendid platitudes, but devoid of any empirical foundation.
So your answer to the OP's question is a resounding NO.

It was my experience not an empirical theory

 

[Tinker Grey]

Except that this is false.

The sun sits there (relative to the earth). The earth rotates. The 'up and down' is essentially an illusion. An illusion that the men that wrote the bible were fooled by.

And, according to Genesis, the Sun didn't even exist until the 4th day.

 

[tas8831]

It was my experience not an empirical theory

So, still NO.

 

[xianghua]

Because evolution works and is proved. What do you even mean by "problem for evolution"? We can have some aspects of evolution wrong, why not... but generally, its established.

Its like saying "there is a hill in some country where water flows up, is it a problem for gravity"? Gravity will not go anywhere just because you can find something.

But it would be really something to think about, if you have trilobits with cows or dinosaurs with humans. But why dont we have such fossils commonly found, do you have some "ID" explanation for this?

you have a contradiction here. you said that human with a dino will not be a problem for evolution and after that you said that it will be a problem to evolution. so what is your position? evolution can be falsify or not?

 

[xianghua]

You seem to be intentionally not getting this point.

A human found in the same rock layers as a dinosaur would be a problem for evolution, because humans require characteristics that had not evolved at the time the dinosaurs were alive.

no. as i said- we can push back creatures or we can claim for an anomaly. so its not true.

 

[trophy33]

you have a contradiction here. you said that human with a dino will not be a problem for evolution and after that you said that it will be a problem to evolution. so what is your position? evolution can be falsify or not?

It will be a problem in the meaning - "its weird, how did it get there".

It would not be a problem as you present it - "we must dismiss evolution completely because of this one fossil". Evolution is too well and long time established in various fields and working, making predictions, useful in various medical and other fields etc.

As some exceptions like that on some hill water flows up instead of down is really an interesting "problem", but not "the problem" for the theory of Gravity, similarly also with these supposed problems for evolution.

You would really need a massive and common evidence against evolution to compare it with the massive evidence for it.

 

[xianghua]

You have been told many, many times that a human with dinosaurs would be a problem.

incorrect. i gave this example and you can clearly see that even if that track fossil is authentic and represent a real tetrapod scientists dont claiming that evolution is false:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

they just push back the origin of tetrapods. so if we will find a dino with human we can push back the origin of human.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

incorrect. i gave this example and you can clearly see that even if that track fossil is authentic and represent a real tetrapod scientists dont claiming that evolution is false:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

they just push back the origin of tetrapods. so if we will find a dino with human we can push back the origin of human.

Please do not call me a liar again. You have been told that a human with dinosaurs would be a problem for evolution. You have also been told why the Devonian trackway would not be a problem. You are repeating errors which have been corrected many, many times. Your continual trolling of threads with your dishonest claims is disrespectful and tiresome. It's sad that such behaviour is allowable on these forums.

 

[xianghua]

You would really need a massive and common evidence against evolution to compare it with the massive evidence for it.

so how many fossils in the wrong place we need to find to falsify evolution?

 

[xianghua]

Please do not call me a liar again. You have been told that a human with dinosaurs would be a problem for evolution. You have also been told why the Devonian trackway would not be a problem. You are repeating errors which have been corrected many, many times. Your continual trolling of threads with your dishonest claims is disrespectful and tiresome. It's sad that such behaviour is allowable on these forums.

i never said that you are a liar. i said that its incorrect that such a fossil will falsify evolution and i explained why. if we can push tetrapod origin by say 20 my we can also push back human origin in 65 my. so unless you can show a real limit for pushing back fossils evolution will be just fine. even myst33 agree with me in this point.

 

[trophy33]

so how many fossils in the wrong place we need to find to falsify evolution?

Why not as many as the ones in the right place?

But for the start, do you have even one ?

 

[pitabread]

so how many fossils in the wrong place we need to find to falsify evolution?

All of them.

If what creationists generally believed was true (that all life was created at the same time), we would expect a fossil record to show all life forms jumbled up together.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of them.

If what creationists generally believed was true (that all life was created at the same time), we would expect a fossil record to show all life forms jumbled up together.

I'm sure they do, but don't report it as such.

I wonder how many times a rabbit has actually been found in the Precambrian, but was conveniently reclassified?