flaws

[JohnR7]

AV, it seems like your chief argument for a young earth is that the earth is young.

The earth is young. It began at the end of the last ice age. That does not mean that there was nothing here before. There could have been a old earth here before that we can study using rocks and fossils. But the world we live in NOW is a young earth that has it's beginning in the last 12,975 years.

The Bible covers a 14,000 year period of time. There is no reason for the Bible to go beyond that period of time. If for example you are talking about the neolithic age, then you would only talk about what takes place during that period of time. In this case it would be a discussion that mostly has to do with the beginning of farming and pottery. Later on when they began to work with metal then a new age began.

 

[lemmings]

The earth is young. It began at the end of the last ice age.

Counterdiction alert!!!!
To beginning of everything can’t happen at the end of something.

That does not mean that there was nothing here before. There could have been a old earth here before that we can study using rocks and fossils. But the world we live in NOW is a young earth that has it's beginning in the last 12,975 years.

So what, did god just press the restart button? Where did you get that number from anyways?

The Bible covers a 14,000 year period of time. There is no reason for the Bible to go beyond that period of time.

But, but it was just under 13,000 a few seconds ago.

If for example you are talking about the neolithic age, then you would only talk about what takes place during that period of time. In this case it would be a discussion that mostly has to do with the beginning of farming and pottery. Later on when they began to work with metal then a new age began.

I am impressed. However according to you the Bible covers the beginning and end, meaning it covers everything.

 

[RedAndy]

But, but it was just under 13,000 a few seconds ago.

It was, but an extra thousand years was "embedded" into the last few seconds.

 

[corvus_corax]

The earth is young.

Cosmologically speaking, yes it is, since it's only about 4+billion years old

It began at the end of the last ice age. That does not mean that there was nothing here before. There could have been a old earth here before that we can study using rocks and fossils. But the world we live in NOW is a young earth that has it's beginning in the last 12,975 years.

Actually, according to your reasoning, the earth that we live in NOW is only 27 years old
Mt St Helens made some changes
According to your suggestion, changes equate to a "new earth", or at least a "younger current earth"
Hence 27 years

The Bible covers a 14,000 year period of time.

See, this is a MAJOR point of discrepancy regarding Christian Creationists.

You guys (all Creationists, all accepting the Bible as the "Truth") cannot even agree on a general age of the earth. 6,000 years, 14,00years.
Now such a small discrepancy is really nothing in actual geological time, but Creationists are, generally speaking, ignoring the objective empirical repeatable evidence regarding the age of the earth

Creationists obviously don't rely on objective empirical evidence. They rely on their personal interpretation of the Bible.
AV1611VET might accept, based on scriptural "evidence" the age of the creation of the earth at 6000 years (with some odd input regarding an older earth past 6000 years, despite the apparent fact that he holds the creation of the planet at about 6000 years ago, if I follow his dissertations correctly). You, likewise basing your assumptions on your personal interpretation of scripture, accept the age of the earth as much older.
Who is right?
Who has the objective empirical evidence to back up their claims?

 

[lemmings]

Actually, according to your reasoning, the earth that we live in NOW is only 27 years old
Mt St Helens made some changes
According to your suggestion, changes equate to a "new earth", or at least a "younger current earth"
Hence 27 years

Oh less than that! The entire planet moved just 2 years ago in the Indian Ocean Tsunami.

 

[Godfixated]

Any flaws in evolution? Well let's see. What evolutionists seem not to understand, is the fact that theories and hypotheses cannot prove the theory of evolution. The hypothesis that the sickle cell is an adaptation to malaria is just that, a hypothesis and, thus, does not prove evolution. The isolated CCR5 gene that is immune to HIV is a theory and, thus, does not prove evolution. Most of the common ancestry timelines are hypotheses and do not prove evolution. I could go on, but, there far too much of this going on in origin now a days. Theories and hypotheses about origin cannot prove origin theories.

 

[JavaMan]

Godfixated:

The isolated CCR5 gene that is immune to HIV is a theory and, thus, does not prove evolution

The gene is a theory? If genes can be theories, can theories be genes?

 

[ENominiPatri]

All of evolution is based on random mutations. It has been shown time and time again that random mutations are NOT a driving force and so evolutionary theory becomes null and a mute point.

Evolution is based on Natural Selection. But in order to have a Selection, you have to have something to Select and that is where the theory begins to fall apart.

The mutation theory is a desperate attempt to try and produce something to select because with nothing to select you have no theory.

Natural selection is the selection of which genes get passed on, i.e. "reproduction." So there you have something to select (genes). Where diversity comes in is through random genetic mutations in all offspring as evidenced by emperical observation of speciation, i.e. the animal kingdom.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'm on record as saying the earth is 4.55 billion years old.

You are also on record as saying,

1. Evolution requires too much time to operate.

and

but again, the point is that anything over 6100 years would be an impossibility.

Now it seems to me that 4.55 billion years is plenty of time for evolution and saying that anything over 6,100 years is impossible while being on record that the earth is 4.55 billion years old is so totally silly that it also seems to me that there is no point in giving any credibility to anything else you say on the subject. I am used to dealing with arguments from authority and arguments from incredulity but lately this board seems to be full of arguments from irrationality.

I don't have to --- I know Someone Who does though, and He says it's wrong --- I just agree with Him, that's all.

No you think that is what someone you believe you know says. Your personal faith and interpretations have nothing to do with actual evolutionary theory and certainly have no bearing on whether or not evolutional theory has any serious flaws.

F.B.

 

[Godfixated]

Godfixated:


The gene is a theory? If genes can be theories, can theories be genes?

I guess, when you can't beat them, attack their grammar. The average forum rebuttal it seems.

 

[Elduran]

Any flaws in evolution? Well let's see. What evolutionists seem not to understand, is the fact that theories and hypotheses cannot prove the theory of evolution. The hypothesis that the sickle cell is an adaptation to malaria is just that, a hypothesis and, thus, does not prove evolution. The isolated CCR5 gene that is immune to HIV is a theory and, thus, does not prove evolution. Most of the common ancestry timelines are hypotheses and do not prove evolution. I could go on, but, there far too much of this going on in origin now a days. Theories and hypotheses about origin cannot prove origin theories.

Are you aware of the following two facts:

1. Science does not deal with "proof", it simply deals with evidence, which the theory of evolution has in abundance
2. In science, a theory is the highest level an explanatory model can reach. You cannot get higher than a theory, and evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.

 

[FishFace]

I know of 4 major flaws:

1. Evolution requires too much time to operate.
2. God didn't leave room for improvement.
3. There was no death prior to Adam and Eve.
4. Jesus "taught" its antithesis - (creation).

What you mean by that is, "I know of one major flaw: Evolution contradicts my dogma."

None of the things you said are actually evidence against evolution (well, the first one would be, but it's not true, and you only put it there because it contradicts your dogma.)

 

[JohnR7]

1. Science does not deal with "proof", it simply deals with evidence, which the theory of evolution has in abundance

1. They have a abundance of evidence for what? Everything they have "evidence" for can be classified as Genetics. No matter how much they want to trick people by calling genetics "evolution". Your so called evidence does not show evolution to be true at all. It only shows that genetics is true. In some cases genetics can be 99.9% true. In the case where they need to establish paternity. So now the joke is that pregancy tests will come with a paternity test.

 

[Elduran]

They have a abundance of evidence for what?

For evolution. For common descent as well.

Everything they have "evidence" for can be classified as Genetics.

Well, not everything, but the most compelling evidence certainly comes from the genes that we carry. ERVs are probably my personal favourite piece of evidence to support human/other modern ape common descent.

No matter how much they want to trick people by calling genetics "evolution".

They don't

Your so called evidence does not show evolution to be true at all.

It backs it up very well. Certainly much better than any predictions from the creationist side of the discussion. Oh wait, they don't make predictions because they don't do science! Silly me

It only shows that genetics is true. In some cases genetics can be 99.9% true.

Why do you seemingly contradict yourself between these two sentances?

In the case where they need to establish paternity. So now the joke is that pregancy tests will come with a paternity test.

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the current subject.

 

[AV1611VET]

What you mean by that is, "I know of one major flaw: Evolution contradicts my dogma."

I guarantee you, FishFace, "my dogma", as you call it, was in effect and working very well long before any contradictory dogma showed up.

 

[us38]

I guarantee you, FishFace, "my dogma", as you call it, was in effect and working very well long before any contradictory dogma showed up.

So? Just because christianity is older than the theory of evolution (and actual evolution does predate christianity, FYI), christianity is correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

So? Just because christianity is older than the theory of evolution (and actual evolution does predate christianity, FYI), christianity is correct?

You're right, US38, evolution does predate Christianity:

Here's a quote from The Internet Encyclopedia

Evolution is not so much a modern discovery as some of its advocates would have us believe. It made its appearance early in Greek philosophy, and maintained its position more or less, with the most diverse modifications, and frequently confused with the idea of emanation, until the close of ancient thought. The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to " evolution";...

Thus evolution was a viable alternative in the philosophical realm in Jesus' time, yet for some reason, Jesus preferred creation over evolution.

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]

 

[us38]

Thus evolution was a viable alternative in the philosophical realm in Jesus' time, yet for some reason, Jesus preferred creation over evolution.

Well, you can't have expected him to even know the Americas existed then, let alone the Galpagos. Not to mention he never used anti-biotics.

Or maybe, just maybe, the people who wrote the bible didn't write about evolution, not because they were divinely inspired, but because the weren't divinely inspired and didn't know what they were talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you can't have expected him to even know the Americas existed then, let alone the Galpagos. Not to mention he never used anti-biotics.

Or maybe, just maybe, the people who wrote the bible didn't write about evolution, not because they were divinely inspired, but because the weren't divinely inspired and didn't know what they were talking about.

Well, US38, let's consider that for a moment.

How then, if the Scriptures weren't inspired, were they able to predict their future?

Check this out, for instance:

[bible]Isaiah 45:1[/bible]

This guy Cyrus was called - by name - 150 years before he was born!

Now check this out:

[bible]1 Kings 13:1-3[/bible]

Look what happens 350 years later:

[bible]2 Kings 23:16[/bible]

This is just one example of many, many, many --- with a 100% rate of accuracy!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, US38, let's consider that for a moment.

How then, if the Scriptures weren't inspired, were they able to predict their future?

Check this out, for instance:

[bible]Isaiah 45:1[/bible]

This guy Cyrus was called - by name - 150 years before he was born!

Now check this out:

[bible]1 Kings 13:1-3[/bible]

Look what happens 350 years later:

[bible]2 Kings 23:16[/bible]

This is just one example of many, many, many --- with a 100% rate of accuracy!

And how do you know when the supposed prophecy was actually written? (Added in edit: Or that it wasn't modified by a later translator or editor?)

Added in a second edit: And your appologetic still has nothing to do with supposed flaws in the theory of evolution.