How old is the world?

[mikeynov]

The claims to which he/she refers are that writers of the Bible had seen dinos and frequently describe them. He asks for substantiation. As the Guy said in Lake Palcid, "They hide information like that in books." and the frequent mention of giant lizards is throughout the Bible. BUt you really don't care about the Bible do you?

I was hoping you could substantiate it by quoting the bible itself.

 

[Valkhorn]

More loopy than imagining that humans evolved from microbial goo? WOW!

Well considering the following:

• Evidence supports a 4.5 billion year old Earth
• Evidence supports that life has existed for nearly 3 or 4 billion years of that time span
• Evidence supports much diversity in life - including millions of species which no longer exist today
• Evidence supports a gradual transition from one form into another over gradual periods of time (i.e. we never see Dinosaurs in the middle of the pre-cambrian layers, or trilobite fossils in the carboniferous layers).
• Independent dating sources give us the ages of fossils and rock layers and ages do correlate with other similar layers in other places of the Earth.
• There is ample evidence that there are plate tectonics, and ample evidence that some land masses which are now two or more continents were once one contienent (South America and Africa have similar coastlines, are separated by a mid ocean ridge and have similar geologic columns and fossils past a certain point) and ample evidence that climate has had many shifts (many ice ages, many interglacial periods, many warm spells too)

In other words the evidence all points to a very ancient earth, and it's in fact mind boggling to think that some people would refuse to look at all the evidence that is around them so they can stick their narrow man-centered worldview which is their own literal biblical interpretation into the margins of pseudoscience and still proclaim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old when that has been disproven more than 200 years ago.

But since when are creationists logical?

Oh yes, as to evolution, well it stands to reason that if the Earth is that ancient, and life has been around for so long, and that life is not a perfect replicator of itself (that variations will occur from generation to generation) and that non-random selection by means of climate shifts or geographical and topographical changes will naturally lead to a gradual evolution of organisms.

Some creationists argue that evolution requires a 4.5 billion year old Earth, but really it doesn't. Evolution can happen from day to day on very small scales, and can even produce speciation in a few years or a few thousand years if not a few million. It depends on the organism, the replicators, and the changes around it in its environment.

But creationists don't make since, are quick to argue, and are quick to judge things they refuse to learn about. After all, if a pastor tells you that the earth is 6000 years old, it must be true - no matter how little real evidence he or she has to support it.

 

[Valkhorn]

I was hoping you could substantiate it by quoting the bible itself.

Don't bring this up again

For once I'd love to see a creationist argue how a dinosaur could have a belly button as they say it does in the Bible.

 

[mikeynov]

then what happend to the dinosaurs?

Ask Dr. Dino. You can order a DVD from his ministries that will detail how "new scientific findings" have indicated that T-rex could breathe fire.

I wish I were joking, but this is the type of **** that creationists think is going to revolutionize science. Seeing YEC in action is kind of like watching a slow-motion car-wreck.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I would love to see some experiments with fruitflies, to try to change them into gnats with radiation induced mutations. Oops, I guess thats already been attemtped and it didn't work.

I am certain you would love that, becase it would disprove the theory of evolution. What is it with YECs who ask for something that contradicts the ToE as proof of it? Dishonesty or ignorance I am never certain. The latter is forgivable (I'm ignorant of engineering and most cosmology) the former isn't. I susaly assume the latter.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I was hoping you could substantiate it by quoting the bible itself.

So far Floodnut has been asked to quote chapters from the bible to substantiate a number of assertions, and has failed to do so in all cases.

Ghost

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Evolutionism is the single most foolish, idiotic, arrogant, baseless and presumptive stance on Anything existing in our modern world. There is no proof whatever for it, no scientific data even hints at it. What this is coming down to is the unbelievers' inability to bow down and Worship the Creator.

Evolutionism? What the heck is that?

And this statement: "no scientific data even hints at it.", from anyone who's been on this forum for more than a day, is demonstrably a load of dingos kidneys. Do tell how retroviral insertions "don't even hint" at common descent. Tell me how the observed pattern of transitional fossils "doesn't even hint" at evolution. Tell me how the convergence of genealogies formed from morphology, biochemistry and ERVs "doesn't even hint" at common descent.

Or retract your bold and ridiculous statment.

As for "What this is coming down to is the unbelievers' inability to bow down and Worship the Creator.", I did that at 9.15 yesterday morning, at St Peter's, Calow, in the Diocese of Derby. I suggest you also retract your nasty little lies about "evolutionists".

 

[Elduran]

I am certain you would love that, becase it would disprove the theory of evolution. What is it with YECs who ask for something that contradicts the ToE as proof of it? Dishonesty or ignorance I am never certain. The latter is forgivable (I'm ignorant of engineering and most cosmology) the former isn't. I susaly assume the latter.

Ghost

It's hard to keep assuming the latter when the actual theories and the mountains of evidence have been pointed out to them, and they still attack strawmen and insist that the evidence either isn't there or that it somehow supports their views!

 

[DJ_Ghost]

It's hard to keep assuming the latter when the actual theories and the mountains of evidence have been pointed out to them, and they still attack strawmen and insist that the evidence either isn't there or that it somehow supports their views!

Yes I agree with you, every day its a little harder to assume the best.

Ghost

 

[Floodnut]

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Ghost

Of course Evolution does not equal atheism. There was a qualifier on my original statement: GOD-DENYING Evolutionists. . . But just out of curiousity, how many of the pro-evolution posters here affirm that Jesus is God? And how many deny that He is God?

 

[Elduran]

Of course Evolution does not equal atheism. There was a qualifier on my original statement: GOD-DENYING Evolutionists. . . But just out of curiousity, how many of the pro-evolution posters here affirm that Jesus is God? And how many deny that He is God?

All but two of the christians I have ever met in real life accepted evolution. Since a very large number of people in my country are at least nominally christian, that is a very large percentage of christians who accept evolution here.

 

[Floodnut]

And there's a 9.6 on the Irrelevancy Scale.

I was talking about creationists lying - creationists, who are Christians, apparently hold themselves to a higher standard than non-Christians. It would seem that the standard against lying is waived if faith is at stake.

As for non-believers having no prohibition against lying, well... Everyone is different, but my Mum brung me up proper, and cursed me with a very strong conscience.

Or are you suggesting that if you were not a believer you'd feel quite comfortable about immoral behaviour?

Oh, so this poster is the judge and jury on relevancy. Did the judge pronounce on the relevancy of prior posts alleging that I was lying, or the allegations that Creationists are liars. To say creationists are liar is relevant according to this judge, but it is a 9.6 on the irrelevancy scale to point out the lack of moral basis for evolutionists who have often been caught in lies.

If I were not a believer? What is moral and immoral to a garden slug?

 

[Floodnut]

Lying for God.



Lying for God.




Lying for God. Geez, the Father of Lies must love you!

How you can, in all seriousness, post stuff like this is of great concern. Not only is there plenty of experimentation and observation involved in the foundation of ToE, but there's a great deal of it always underway that further supports and clarifies the process.

However, the major factor that undermines your bizarre claim that the ToE is a religion is the vast numbers of theists (of all stripes) who continue to work in the field. I'd bet they'd be amazed to discover that they have two religions!!

Edited to add: Having read Valk's post above, I'd like to echo what he said: mutating fruitflies into some other variety of extant insect would disprove evolution. Doesn't it make you nervous to loudly declaim something about which you know nothing?

Yes, it is a matter of Two religions. It is evolution which makes the bizarre claims, but the faith continues. We still have yet to see a single case of transition from one speicies to another (of course you will insert your wonderful web links here), nor have we seen the mechanism demonstrated in a controlled experiment. The earth is 6000 years old. All present species on the Earth are descendents of the pairs that were on the Ark of Noah that Jesus treated as Literal.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Oh, so this poster is the judge and jury on relevancy. Did the judge pronounce on the relevancy of prior posts alleging that I was lying, or the allegations that Creationists are liars. To say creationists are liar is relevant according to this judge, but it is a 9.6 on the irrelevancy scale to point out the lack of moral basis for evolutionists who have often been caught in lies.

Often? Not really. Not as often as creationists by miles, pro rata as it were.

If I were not a believer? What is moral and immoral to a garden slug?

An important difference between slugs and atheistic human beings is that latter have this thing called a "conscience". For some reason some fundamentalists seem that they're only handed out to believers, but it ain't so. Indeed, some fundamentalists talk in terms that make me worry they don't actually have one, but can only derive a sense of right and wrong by interpretation of the Bible. Since this in places advocates genocide, I really worry.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Of course Evolution does not equal atheism. There was a qualifier on my original statement: GOD-DENYING Evolutionists. . . But just out of curiousity, how many of the pro-evolution posters here affirm that Jesus is God? And how many deny that He is God?

Then my apologies, we are used to seeing certain regular posters here add things like “God Denying” not as a qualifier but as if it was just emphasis.

To answer your question i don’t know exact numbers but to a casual glance it looks as if the evolutionists that post here are pretty much split 60-40 it perhaps 50-50 between atheistic and theistic.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

All but two of the christians I have ever met in real life accepted evolution. Since a very large number of people in my country are at least nominally christian, that is a very large percentage of christians who accept evolution here.

Funny thats the exact same numbers for me. You don't suppose its the same 2 do you?

Ghost

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Yes, it is a matter of Two religions. It is evolution which makes the bizarre claims, but the faith continues. We still have yet to see a single case of transition from one speicies to another (of course you will insert your wonderful web links here),

Yes, and if you'd actually read them rather than preferred to stick your hands over your ears going "la la la can't hear you", you'd know that speciation has been observed, and the above statement is demonstrably false. It seems to me you're trying to avoid actually having to lie by ensuring you remain ignorant of reality. The alternative is, of course, that you have read the links, know the above statement is false and are actually a liar. Which is it?

nor have we seen the mechanism demonstrated in a controlled experiment.

Which mechanism would you like to see demonstrated? We've done experiments on bacteria where we've removed genes and watched as mutations replace the lost functionality. What do you actually want?

The earth is 6000 years old. All present species on the Earth are descendents of the pairs that were on the Ark of Noah that Jesus treated as Literal.

You have absolutely no basis for that assertion. It seems to me that you are thinking along the lines "I assume it's literal when I refer to the story, so therefore so did Jesus." It's not what I'd call sophisticated thinking.

 

[Floodnut]

* * * * *

Yes there are, and the majority of American Scientists are Christian, and the VAST majority accept evolution. Are you saying they are no Bible believing?

They are not Bible-believers at the point where they believe in evolution. There are "Bible-believers" who believe Jesus was married and had natural children, who believe that the God of the Old Testament is really Satan. They do not believe the Bible at those points of revelation. Some only believe one verse, like "Judge not lest ye be judged." Or they believe the Bible is full of contradictions. They are Bible believers only in the loosest sense.

 

[Floodnut]

It doesn't say that there were dinosaurs on the Ark. If I have missed it, quote me the chapter and verse where it says dinosaurs (or kangaroos, for that matter) were on the Ark.

It doesn't name any of the animals that were on the Ark, duh. It only gives a general description: all air breathing land animals in whose nostrils is the breath of life. Dinosaurs were on the Ark, as were the ancestors of kangaroos. Why don't you give me the verse that says they were not on the ark?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

They are not Bible-believers at the point where they believe in evolution. There are "Bible-believers" who believe Jesus was married and had natural children, who believe that the God of the Old Testament is really Satan. They do not believe the Bible at those points of revelation. Some only believe one verse, like "Judge not lest ye be judged." Or they believe the Bible is full of contradictions. They are Bible believers only in the loosest sense.

So for you, Bible believing actually means "Believe that the Bible means what I think it means".

I believe Genesis 1. I do not believe it teaches the world was made in six days. I think that's a category error. Don't presume to tell me what I do and don't believe.