Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[Baggins]

When you talk about deception, you are not aware that you cannot put your finger on how it all began?

I am aware of that fact, I am also aware that you don't know what I know and I don't know.

You do know how it all began?

No I don't, do you have any scientific theories yourself?

Then why don't you tell us.

I assume that eventually it will turn out that some form of abiogenesis will account for the start of life, I wouldn't be suprised if scientists created simple replicating cells in my life time.

As to the origin of the universe, I am not well read enough in cosmology to critique big band theory, but I assume that it will turn out top be close to the truth as well, but may well need some modification as we learn more about quantum physics and as we approach an idea of quantum gravity.

 

[Baggins]

The easiest example is when it discusses helium in the atmosphere. It touches on the fact that helium is lost. It totally ignores the fact that the rate it is lost is significantly lower than the rate at which is it produced.

Now, IF you happen to find someone that is honest enough to admit that. In discussions about problems with evolution these people will usually say, "Well, obviously there is some kind of massive loss that we don't know about yet." They will not carry that through to discuss the logical, and purely scientific, results that anything that catastrophic would have caused. They just try to avoid that part of the discussion.

This is all completely unsubstantiated, where is your evidence that there is too much helium in the atmosphere?

I thought the creationist claim was there not enough helium in the atmosphere to account for 4.5BA eareth history, you don't appear to be able to understand the creationist argument.

The talkorigins refutation is backed up by scientific peer review research (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).

What is your example backed up with besides rhetoric

 

[Lignoba]

Dear Lignoba,

I understand your skepticism of dinos and men co-existing, but a look at the artwork of our earlier ancestors shows good depictions of stegosaurus and archeopterix (to name but 2). Actually I even one time found a web site of a photo taken during the American civil war of a downed Arche...

Regards,

Jac

Ok, I admit it. We do live with dinosaurs in the form of alligators and crocodiles, as well as sharks. However, had there been stegosaurus, or archeopterix, wouldnt we have found bones alongside the humans in their homes? Obviously we would have tried to hunt them. And if they existed, isnt it possilbe raptors also existed? I am pretty sure they would have found us suitable prey.

 

[Lignoba]

I just looked at that picture, and I also know it is a hoax. A Civil War photograph would have much more distortion than that, as at that period in time (cameras were very VERY new, and only held by the wealthy... how did the army get one?) it took nearly two minutes of exposure to produce a photograph. I suspect that "dinosaur" is a piece of canvas that was torn down... during a Civil War reinactment. I have taken photos of my girlfriend and used my computer to make them look vintage like that. Cave drawings? Where are there any cave drawings of stegosaurus'? Do you know that most of these are also hoaxes?

 

[Baggins]

? Do you know that most of these are also hoaxes?

I think they are all hoaxes

 

[Herman Hedning]

I just looked at that picture, and I also know it is a hoax. A Civil War photograph would have much more distortion than that, as at that period in time (cameras were very VERY new, and only held by the wealthy... how did the army get one?) it took nearly two minutes of exposure to produce a photograph. I suspect that "dinosaur" is a piece of canvas that was torn down... during a Civil War reinactment. I have taken photos of my girlfriend and used my computer to make them look vintage like that. Cave drawings? Where are there any cave drawings of stegosaurus'? Do you know that most of these are also hoaxes?

I believe it was explained in post #207 exactly what is seen in the picture. By the way, you have some ideas about photography that are not quite true. There are many excellent photographies from the time of the civil war. Cameras had been around for some forty years by that time, and the technology was quite refined already. Exposure time would have been about 5 to 10 seconds for the common wet plate ambrotype process used. Even less at the end of the civil war when the cheaper and simpler tintype plates started to come into use. Here's an authentic picture from the time of the civil war.

There's plenty more at http://www.archives.gov/research/civil-war/photos/ if you are interested.

 

[Edx]

You object to places like AGI. .

Does talk origins have a statment if faith that says that they will never let anything change their minds, and that any evidence that suggests their beliefs are wrong must automatically be discounted?

Ed

 

[Jacquo]

Dear Thread folks,

Since I was last on yesterday afternoon there has been not a little activity.

The immediate thing to mention is the Ica stones do have a story of fraud involved. What is apparently missed is that not all are frauds, but of course when there are so many and some fraud has been proven, immediately no one with a hint of desire to disbelief will hold the real for what it is.

Here is a link to an investigator of the Ica stones report:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm

Please note the AIG comment mentioned in a previous post about the Ica stones involves a footnote to a separate article. It appears the Ica stones are not fully discussed at AIG.

In my earlier response to the Kuiper Belt I think I was at the time under the 15 post requirements to be able to link.
Here is the link to it: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/comets.asp#f1

I noted that the TO article made no mention at all of the size of the objects observed in the ‘Kuiper Belt’. Can it be that the size if mentioned would bear doubt upon the article's intended use?

It remains to be seen whether smaller objects will or will not be found. To say because some objects of a certain size are there automatically mean smaller ones will be is not exactly the stuff of empirical science but of course possible.

By ‘body of evidence’ I mean ‘the up to date info we have’ there is no proof thereby of the alleged source of short term comets. An idea is there granted. But a proved one not so.

I have not done the maths or know that whether am capable of such, but one report read that for that region of space to be the source billions of the comet sized objects would be required.

Regards,

Jac

 

[Redwolf]

I am aware of that fact, I am also aware that you don't know what I know and I don't know.



No I don't, do you have any scientific theories yourself?



I assume that eventually it will turn out that some form of abiogenesis will account for the start of life, I wouldn't be suprised if scientists created simple replicating cells in my life time.

As to the origin of the universe, I am not well read enough in cosmology to critique big band theory, but I assume that it will turn out top be close to the truth as well, but may well need some modification as we learn more about quantum physics and as we approach an idea of quantum gravity.

There is no doubt in my mind that scientists can make a silk purse from a sow's ear if they have a mind to. But to do so, they must have a sow's ear.

Abiogenesis, sorta like spontaneous combustion, as in big bang, needs a first ingredient to begin the chain reaction. Where did it come from?
I'm told that scientists can make something from nothing, which is simply not true. We have scientists, pots and pans, labs, etceteras, and bingo.....something from nothing is no longer true.
Once that first ingredient is found, we're all set.

 

[JohnR7]

You have no scientific evidence for God, nor any other origin.

In order to establish evidence for God, you would have to establish a zero percent chance that things could have happened in any other way.

 

[notto]

Once that first ingredient is found, we're all set.

Amino acids from space. Looks like we are all set.

 

[Redwolf]

Amino acids from space. Looks like we are all set.

​

No, not yet. You don't know where amino acids and space came from. They materialized from what?

 

[Redwolf]

In order to establish evidence for God, you would have to establish a zero percent chance that things could have happened in any other way.

In order to establish evidence for God, we'd have to talk Him out of the faith requirement.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What are our chances?
[/FONT]

 

[TeddyKGB]

​

No, not yet. You don't know where amino acids and space came from. They materialized from what?

Does it matter? You wanted precursors for life, amino acids are precursors for life.

 

[Redwolf]

Does it matter? You wanted precursors for life, amino acids are precursors for life.

No, I wanted FIRST INGREDIENT.

You don't have it and you never will.

And it matters very much, because without that very first initial ingredient, all you have is -- Theory.

 

[notto]

​

No, not yet. You don't know where amino acids and space came from. They materialized from what?

Umn, chemical reaction?

Wait, let me guess, now we need to determine where the atoms came from, and then the quarks, and then . . .

Problem is, then you are not talking about evolution or even abiogenesis but physics.

It's like saying we can't understand chemistry until we know where the atoms came from. Problem is, we can.

The chemical precursors to life are chemicals. Chemicals we find in space or can synthesize in a lab.

The original challenge has been met, plain and simple.

 

[notto]

No, I wanted FIRST INGREDIENT.

You don't have it and you never will.

And you can't name it and apparently never will.

You exercise in moving the goalsposts has been noted. You are a great creationist.

 

[Baggins]

No, I wanted FIRST INGREDIENT.

You don't have it and you never will.

And it matters very much, because without that very first initial ingredient, all you have is -- Theory.

Well if the first ingredient isn't amino acids then it must be:

Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and nitrogen

So now we've got that sorted what next?

Oh! it's not that either.

I suggest you learn what your looking for, no point asking us to findsomething if you can't describe it

 

[Redwolf]

Umn, chemical reaction?

Wait, let me guess, now we need to determine where the atoms came from, and then the quarks, and then . . .

Problem is, then you are not talking about evolution or even abiogenesis but physics.

It's like saying we can't understand chemistry until we know where the atoms came from. Problem is, we can.

The chemical precursors to life are chemicals. Chemicals we find in space or can synthesize in a lab.

The original challenge has been met, plain and simple.

I'm talking about origin and the first ingredient.

It is illogical to say it just happened.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I'm talking about origin and the first ingredient.

It is illogical to say it just happened.

It is no more illogical to say it just happened than it is to say God has always been there. Please, you are representing our faith, please try not to make us all look foolish pr dishonest by applying a double standard.

Ghost