Evolution is very obvious that is not true at all

[PhantomLlama]

Obviously, PhantomLlama, you are not familiar with the bible.

I am fairly familiar with that part of the bible.

Not only the world was created in six days, but also all of the organisms, which would contradict evolution because evolution requires much more time for everything to be created.

The creation of the organisms contradicts evolution. Not the 6 days itself.

 

[Mistermystery]

Knowing that the earth is 6,000 years old is far from an assumption. Hemoglobin and red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones.The dinosaur was dated as living 65 million years ago by evolutionists; however, research shows that these cells could not survive longer than a few thousand years, which means that the dinosaur lived recently. This is just one of many, many reasons that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

First of all: list your sources.

Secondly: not the blood cell thing again! We debunked that a couple of weeks ago. I know what you're quoting from, and that's a quote minded. No red blood dinosaur cell has ever been founded. Do you really want to hear it all again?

Thirdly, if the earth is only 6000 years old, how do you explain ice-cores for instance? Meteor crashes? Volcanic activity? Please don't say "they're not annual (debunked argument), meteor-shower (debunked argument), never happend (debunked argument)".

 

[PhantomLlama]

What evidence do you have that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Radiometric dating is very unreliable. There are a staggering amount of cases where carbon dating has been tested and failed miserably.

Do you have any examples of the unreliability of carbon dating? Before choosing which ones to present, remember that carbon dating:
1. Is not supposed to be used on living organisms.
2. Does not work for very short ages or ages older than ~30,000 years.

If you can present examples in which carbon dating has failed while operating inside these known and recognised parameters, I would be very interested to hear it, as would the scientific community.

Knowing that the earth is 6,000 years old is far from an assumption. Hemoglobin and red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones.The dinosaur was dated as living 65 million years ago by evolutionists; however, research shows that these cells could not survive longer than a few thousand years, which means that the dinosaur lived recently. This is just one of many, many reasons that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Source please. I remember hearing something about this, but I can't remember the details.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

What evidence do you have that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

Radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks and chondritic meteorites and other lines of evidence such as the Xe closure age of the earth which both point toward a 4.45 Ga age of the earth with a ~100 Ma period of formation.

More importantly is we have numerous independent lines of evidence that dictate the earth's age to be much older than 6,000 years old. That they are independent implies that we don't necessarily need radiometric dating to show that the earth is much older than YECists claim.

Radiometric dating is very unreliable.

No, it's not because we can predict radiometric dates such as in varved formations where laminae form biannually and we can date volcanic ash horizons (tephrochronology), for example, and simply counting varves and dating the ash gives the same result.

We can also predict K-Ar dates of the Hawaiian Islands using the rate of motion of the earth's plates which can be directly observed from GPS. That's discussed in more detail (and unrefuted by creationists) here: http://www.christianforums.com/t50891

Furthermoe, if radiometric dating were unreliable, we would not be able to cross reference dates that use different nuclide systems, and thus parent nuclides with different decay rates. It should be impossible for dates obtained from many different methods to match so well if it was as fatally flawed as you say. Resident geologist, Dr. Meert, has a page that lists such an example (and I assume he doesn't mind me using it...): http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm.

Radiometric dating is not "very unreliable." Obviously the opposite is true and you've been lied to by creationist organizations and bought it because you qutie obviously didn't investigate the subject yourself to see if they were right.

There are a staggering amount of cases where carbon dating has been tested and failed miserably.

Only if you are a creationist deliberately trying to use carbon dating incorrectly, such as on a living organism or a marine organism that does not get its carbon from the atmosphere. Creationists are notorious for using the method improperly, so of course it fails miserably where we know it's not supposed to work.

If carbon dating were so unreliable, then why does it correllate so well with dendrochronology (essentially, counting annual tree rings)?

Thirdly, carbon dating is a unique type of radiometric dating and it only works on samples that go back to 50,000 years before present with the best technology available today. Radiocarbon dating simply isn't used to date the earth in the first place.

Knowing that the earth is 6,000 years old is far from an assumption.

It's an assumption because it's not based upon any evidence whatsoever. It's based only on a literal interpretation of the Bible which is readily shown to be false.

Hemoglobin and red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones.The dinosaur was dated as living 65 million years ago by evolutionists; however, research shows that these cells could not survive longer than a few thousand years, which means that the dinosaur lived recently.

This has already been discussed on this forum probably within the past week. Red blood cells were not found. That is another lie propagated by creationist organizations. It might be good for you to not only investigate their claims before you essentially parrott them, but to also look through this forum because this claim has been addressed here so many times.

This is just one of many, many reasons that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

It's nothing we haven't seen here before. The important thing to note is that what matters is the evidence that proves that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old, and not only is the evidence supporting a 4.45 Ga earth better in quantity, it is also far better in quality.


I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You make blind assertions ("Radiometric dating is very unreliable") and can't back them up. That you try to with carbon dating (yet provide no evidence) indicates that you don't understand how the earth is dated in the first place. You are simply repeating what creationist organizations tell you without actually learning about what they are talking about first. And your implication inevitably results in some sort of evil evolutionist conspiracy to bury bad radiometric dates or something to that effect. The fact is that REAL scientists already know the limitations of dating methods and wouldn't use them improperly in the first place.

 

[dstauff]

To answer the question of my sources here is one of my prime sources. I apologize for not citing it earlier: Comninellis, Nicholas, M.D. Creative Defense. Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 2001.

 

[dstauff]

Thirdly, carbon dating is a unique type of radiometric dating and it only works on samples that go back to 50,000 years before present with the best technology available today. Radiocarbon dating simply isn't used to date the earth in the first place.

Very good point. I am very aware of this fact. Actually, the creator of the carbon 14 dating method, Dr. Willard F. Libby, stated that it was only accurate to 4,000 years (Comninellis 106). So why do evolutionists (not to stereotype, but obviously many evolutionists have done this) date fossils with carbon dating and say that they are millions, or possibly billions, of years old when this method is not intended to date that far?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Actually, the creator of the carbon 14 dating method, Dr. Willard F. Libby, stated that it was only accurate to 4,000 years (Comninellis 106).

And Libby developped the method in the 1950's, I believe, so that point is completely irrelevant. Are you saying technology hasn't improved in the past 50 years? The best technology today can date back to 50,000 years before present. That limit has increased over the years due to technological advancement.

So why do evolutionists (not to stereotype, but obviously many evolutionists have done this) date fossils with carbon dating and say that they are millions, or possibly billions, of years old when this method is not intended to date that far?

They don't, as the method only goes back to 50,000 years before present. They use other methods.

 

[dstauff]

The creation of the organisms contradicts evolution. Not the 6 days itself.

The six days contradict evolution, also because that is a key part in Creation. Evolution could not have happened entirely in just 6 24-hour days.

 

[Mistermystery]

To answer the question of my sources here is one of my prime sources. I apologize for not citing it earlier: Comninellis, Nicholas, M.D. Creative Defense. Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 2001.

Yeah I thought so.. It's the same one we talked about last week. Mary Schweitzer of Montana State University in Bozeman is being quoted in this if I recall correclty. She's quoted when examining an exceptionally well-preserved tyrannosaur skeleton. I quote: 'In parts it was almost indistinguishable from modern bone, with no mineral infilling,' she said. Note that she does not say it was not fossilated. A dense outer layer of bone seems to have stopped water diffusing in, slowing fossilisation of the interior. Big deal, that's not that she said it was an unfossilized bone.

Meanwhile, a colleague showed a thin section of the bone to a pathologist, who spotted what appeared to be red blood cells. Several tests then confirmed that the bones contained haem, the oxygen carrying part of the haemoglobin molecule of the blood. Schweitzer writes in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (vol 94, p 6291). But it is NOT I repeat NOT red blood. It only appeared to be red blood cells, but in facts was haem, a more resilient and strong part of the blood, but not any indication of Red blood cells.

It's unfortunate that she's being misquoted so much. I'll repeat this again: She never did discover red blood cells, she only discovered haem in the bone.

 

[USincognito]

So why do evolutionists (not to stereotype, but obviously many evolutionists have done this) date fossils with carbon dating and say that they are millions, or possibly billions, of years old when this method is not intended to date that far?

Educate yourself about dating, and the responses to critics.

I will ask a rhetorical question... why do creationists ask about carbon 14 dating for fossils that are millions of years old, when that method isn't used for fossils?

 

[dstauff]

Where did I mention a day lasting millions of years? She is a theistic (Christian) evolutionist. She believes God created the universe, and all life in it. Evolution is, to her, one of the mechanisms he chose to use.

I apologize for beating a dead horse, but I want to make sure I fully understand your wife's point of view so that there are no misunderstandings. How long does your wife believe each day of creation was? If she doesn't believe God created everything in six 24-hour days, then how long was each day? Does she believe God put some DNA in a single-celled organism, then made it evolve over time? I know you didn't state that each day lasted millions of years, but what other alternative would there be besides each day lasting for only 24 hours?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Very good point. I am very aware of this fact. Actually, the creator of the carbon 14 dating method, Dr. Willard F. Libby, stated that it was only accurate to 4,000 years (Comninellis 106). So why do evolutionists (not to stereotype, but obviously many evolutionists have done this) date fossils with carbon dating and say that they are millions, or possibly billions, of years old when this method is not intended to date that far?

Statements like the above basically invalidate any other musings you may have on the subject.

Ignorance can be bliss but it doesn't further discussion. As someone else pointed out you might want to learn something about the topic you are disparaging.

 

[jb-creation]

There are only four options.

a) The "Day-Age Theory"--each day represents an indefinite period of time. Since the order of creation described in Genesis does not fit with the evolutionary sequence or the order of the fossil record interpreted as having been laid down over lengthy periods of time, some who hold to this interpretation (such as 'progressive creationist' Hugh Norman Ross) claim that the days overlap each other. The Hebrew word for day ('yom') can, on occasion, mean an indefinite period of time. However, this is not the case when yom is modified by a number or the concept of evening/morning. Likewise, the plural of yom ('yamim') does not permit the non-24-hour meaning (as in, "For in six days [yamim] the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" [Exodus 20:11, KJV])

b) the "Gap Theory"--this states that there is a large gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, during which evolutionary history occured. This is based on the fact that the Hebrew word typically translated as "was" ('hayetha'--this is the regular hebrew verb of being) is, in extremely rare circumstances, translated as "became." The verb, however, does not denote a change of state unless required by the context. Also, the Gap Theory requires the Hebrew phrase 'tohu waw bohu' to translate as "ruined and desolated." The translation in the King James Version ("without form and void") is the proper meaning. Also worth noting is that the Gap Theory assumes some cataclysmic event before the beginning of the creation week (re-creation week, to Gap Theorists), normally assumed to be the fall of Lucifer from heaven. Everything is destroyed and God starts anew. Therefore, the creatures in the fossil record would be unrelated to the creatures of today, it would seem.

c) the "Allegorical Approach"--this views the early chapters of Genesis as only demonstrating theological points. In this view, it is non-literal and non-historical. However, the Hebrew grammar of the creation account in Genesis is exactly what one would expect from a historical narative. The style called the "waw consecutive" (waw means "and"--note how many verses begin with "and") clearly indicates a chronological order in this instance. The manner in which the verb tense shifts is also indicative of a historical narrative. A question to be asked of this view is: at what point does it stop being simply allegorical, and on what basis is this distinction made?

d) the literal approach--this takes the text at face value, seeing creation as having occured in six 24-hour periods of the earth's rotation and placing the date of creation at approximately 6,000 years ago.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Well I am totally new here but I wanted to share my thoughts on here about that subject. Evolution is so unrealistic lol I remember when I was in the 4th grade my teacher expected me to believe Dolphins had feet... if this is true what is the sole purpose of life and if this is all true is there any reason to go by rules like do not murder?

How does the method of God's creation have to do with morality?

I mean we are all gonna die someday so why not end our worry of death and get over it?

You seem to be arguing against atheism.

Why isn't evolution happening now?

It is.

Because there was no such thing.I mean can a tin can create itself? No everything has a maker such as us we come from our parents or is it possible babies come from monkeys?

You are not identical to your parents. Adding the differences of many generations can produce large differences.

 

[buddy1]

You are not identical to your parents. Adding the differences of many generations can produce large differences.

Everyone agrees with that but it does not mean that the change taking place is going to make fish into amphibians or dinosaurs into birds, much less bacteria into biologists. For that you need NEW INFORMATION. You need lungs instead of gills to live on land. You need wings and guidance systems in order to fly. It is either naïve or downright deceptive to say as some evolutionists do, "ability to fly gave the protobirds a selective advantage."

Also, unless you believe in the "hopeful monster" theory, even Gould’s punctuated equilibrium requires small changes in successive generations. A small wing would be a hindrance, not a help, and would be eliminated by natural selection. Evolution cannot say, "this will be helpful later so keep it." The ideas that small wings could be useful for catching insects is pretty far fetched and coming up with uses for intermediate characteristics really runs out of credibility pretty quickly when you have to account for the plethora of life with all its variations.

 

[buddy1]

I dont understand why the evolutionary movement would want to veer toward creation based data...hmmmm. ponder the following:

PRESTIGIOUS JOURNAL ENDORSES BASICS OF CREATIONIST COSMOLOGY
by D. Russell Humphreys </creationscientists/physicalscientists.html>, Ph.D. Physics

© Copyright 2003 <../copyright.html> Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

A prestigious scientific journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), has just published an article[1] using the same foundations and starting scenario as the "white-hole" creationist cosmology I published in 1994.[2] Since the sponsoring organization, the National Academy of Séances—I mean "Sciences"—is officially hostile to creationism,[3] I doubt that the editors of PNAS consciously meant to do us a favor. The authors, mathematicians Joel Smoller and Blake Temple, did not reference my writings, so perhaps they knew nothing of my cosmology. However, a connection might exist, because my book, Starlight and Time, is now into its eighth printing with more than 50,000 copies circulating worldwide. Such a connection, whether conscious theft or unconscious diffusion of ideas, would in either case be the sincerest form of flattery!

Smoller and Temple start by rejecting, as I did, the foundational assumption of the Big Bang theory, the "Copernican Principle" or "Cosmological Principle," which requires that matter uniformly fill all space at all times—even at the very beginning. Since there would never be any empty space around the matter, there could never be a boundary around the matter. Lacking such a boundary, we could never determine a unique center, such as a center of mass, inside it. But Smoller and Temple start, as I did, by assuming that in the beginning there was lots of empty space around the matter, and that the matter did (and still does) have a center of mass. Contrary to what non-experts imagine, this is profoundly different from the Big Bang’s picture of the cosmos.

Smoller and Temple also imagine, as I did, that the matter started its expansion in a white hole, a subspecies of black hole that has all its matter moving outward instead of inward. Furthermore, they even consider, as I did in 1998[4], that the white hole could have resulted from the earlier collapse of a black hole.

There are some important differences in their theory. First, they used a coordinate system (the "Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff metric") that does not make time dilation effects explicit. I used a coordinate system (the "Klein metric") that made it easier to compare clocks in different locations and see the effect of time dilation.

Second, Smoller and Temple consider a situation in which the "event horizon" (where the most commonly thought-of type of time dilation would occur) as still today being very far away, well beyond the view of even the Hubble Space Telescope. They imagine the event horizon shrinking to our location (in their view not necessarily near the center) sometime in the very distant future, if ever, so time dilation is not a concern of theirs. My cosmology considers the situation in which the event horizon would have shrunk to the center (near which is the Earth) and disappeared on the fourth day of Earth’s time, thus putting all the cosmic time dilation effects in our past, about 6,000 years ago.

Third, Smoller and Temple consider the effects of shock waves (strong sound waves, like a thunderclap) in the expanding ball of gas. For the sake of simplicity, my 1994 book ignored the possibility of such effects. But in 2002, I proposed (qualitatively) that such shock waves could account for the concentric-shell arrangement of galaxies around our own galaxy, as suggested by "quantized" redshifts.[5] Smoller and Temple’s quantitative analysis of the waves could prove to be very useful to creationists in developing a good theory on how God made galaxies during the fourth day.

In conclusion, I find it interesting to speculate on the impact of this PNAS article on "progressive creationist" Hugh Ross. Dr. Ross has (A) founded his theology on the Big Bang theory, (B) made a career of criticizing my "white-hole" cosmology,[6] and (C) always shifted his course to conform to the latest winds of doctrine from the cosmology establishment. Now that those winds have (at least temporarily) veered toward a creationist view, will he now change his course?



[1] Joel Smoller and Blake Temple, Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(20):11216-11218, September 30, 2003. PNAS published the article in the "early edition" on their website on September 12 <http://www.pnas.org/papbysection.shtml>

Later the article will move to the "archive" section of the same website <http://www.pnas.org/contents-by-date.2003.shtml>

A layman’s news account <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030917072015.htm>.

[2] D. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time </page/001/PROD/BSTTI1>, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994.

See ref. 6 below for more information on the book.

[3] Frank Press, Science and Creationism: A View From the National Academy of Sciences, 1984.

[4] D. Russell Humphreys, New vistas of space-time rebut the critics <../starlightandtime/starlightwars.html>, CEN Tech. J. 12(2):195-212, 1998.

[5] D. Russell Humphreys, Our galaxy is the centre of the universe <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf>, ‘quantized’ red shifts show, TJ 16(2):95-104. See section 11, p. 102.

For layman’s summaries, see Article 1 <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-350.htm> and Article 2 <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0807tj.asp>

[6] D. Russell Humphreys, Seven years of Starlight and Time <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-338.htm>, ICR Impact No. 338, August 2001.

 

[Data]

[edit] ack, why can't we delete posts?

 

[Jet Black]

Very good point. I am very aware of this fact. Actually, the creator of the carbon 14 dating method, Dr. Willard F. Libby, stated that it was only accurate to 4,000 years (Comninellis 106).

modern technology allows us to use carbon dating to test back to about 50,000 years.

So why do evolutionists (not to stereotype, but obviously many evolutionists have done this) date fossils with carbon dating and say that they are millions, or possibly billions, of years old when this method is not intended to date that far?

well nobody does use carbon dating to date things over 50,000 years. other techniques are used, such as Uranium dating, Krypton-Argon and so on. there are a wide variety of radio isotope dating methods, not just C14.

 

[Nathan Poe]

There are only four options.

a) The "Day-Age Theory"--each day represents an indefinite period of time. Since the order of creation described in Genesis does not fit with the evolutionary sequence or the order of the fossil record interpreted as having been laid down over lengthy periods of time, some who hold to this interpretation (such as 'progressive creationist' Hugh Norman Ross) claim that the days overlap each other. The Hebrew word for day ('yom') can, on occasion, mean an indefinite period of time. However, this is not the case when yom is modified by a number or the concept of evening/morning. Likewise, the plural of yom ('yamim') does not permit the non-24-hour meaning (as in, "For in six days [yamim] the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" [Exodus 20:11, KJV])

Only relevent if one assumes an inerrant Bible.

b) the "Gap Theory"--this states that there is a large gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, during which evolutionary history occured. This is based on the fact that the Hebrew word typically translated as "was" ('hayetha'--this is the regular hebrew verb of being) is, in extremely rare circumstances, translated as "became." The verb, however, does not denote a change of state unless required by the context. Also, the Gap Theory requires the Hebrew phrase 'tohu waw bohu' to translate as "ruined and desolated." The translation in the King James Version ("without form and void") is the proper meaning. Also worth noting is that the Gap Theory assumes some cataclysmic event before the beginning of the creation week (re-creation week, to Gap Theorists), normally assumed to be the fall of Lucifer from heaven. Everything is destroyed and God starts anew. Therefore, the creatures in the fossil record would be unrelated to the creatures of today, it would seem.

JohnR7's the big GAP theologian, I'll let him field this one.

c) the "Allegorical Approach"--this views the early chapters of Genesis as only demonstrating theological points. In this view, it is non-literal and non-historical. However, the Hebrew grammar of the creation account in Genesis is exactly what one would expect from a historical narative. The style called the "waw consecutive" (waw means "and"--note how many verses begin with "and") clearly indicates a chronological order in this instance. The manner in which the verb tense shifts is also indicative of a historical narrative. A question to be asked of this view is: at what point does it stop being simply allegorical, and on what basis is this distinction made?

The answer is: That's why God gave us brains. Figure it out.

d) the literal approach--this takes the text at face value, seeing creation as having occured in six 24-hour periods of the earth's rotation and placing the date of creation at approximately 6,000 years ago.

1: The Bible says nothing about 6,000 years. That was Bishop Ussher's calculation. So you're not really putting your faith in the Bible, but in him. Lots of luck!

2: 6,000 years has already been falsified 6 ways from Sunday by a plethora of unrelated fields of science.

 

[challenger]

You are not identical to your parents. Adding the differences of many generations can produce large differences.

Everyone agrees with that but it does not mean that the change taking place is going to make fish into amphibians or dinosaurs into birds, much less bacteria into biologists. For that you need NEW INFORMATION. You need lungs instead of gills to live on land. You need wings and guidance systems in order to fly. It is either naïve or downright deceptive to say as some evolutionists do, "ability to fly gave the protobirds a selective advantage."

Also, unless you believe in the "hopeful monster" theory, even Gould’s punctuated equilibrium requires small changes in successive generations. A small wing would be a hindrance, not a help, and would be eliminated by natural selection. Evolution cannot say, "this will be helpful later so keep it." The ideas that small wings could be useful for catching insects is pretty far fetched and coming up with uses for intermediate characteristics really runs out of credibility pretty quickly when you have to account for the plethora of life with all its variations.

Yes but partial wings (such as on the flying squirral) could happen quite feasibly. Over time, animals with partial wings could develop stronger muscles, making gliding easier or longer lasting, eventually developing into flight.