Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You haven’t read the book, so you have no idea what they covered about genetics. They covered the fact that every species of the kinds on board need not be included, thus only two dogs - and not every species of canine - as one example, and came up with 85,000 kinds if memory serves, and analysis of the dimensions and number of floors on the ark yields the equivalent of 500 railroad boxcars of space, again if memory serves, as I don’t have my copy of it available, more than enough space.
And you’re forgetting that God is almighty - He easily and instantly created any adaptations needed for animals to survive the new ecology on the post flood earth - you are analyzing everything from the materialistic and naturalistic perspective.
If a man wants badly enough to believe something, nothing, absolutely nothing will change his mind—not even God Himself!Evolution didn't happen. God created the world over 6 days.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them
I am done talking to you. Carry on believing whatever deceptions you want. God's word is simple and clear on how the world came to be. It is there for you to read if you so choose.
John 5:46If a man wants badly enough to believe something, nothing, absolutely nothing will change his mind—not even God Himself!
cat kind “descended” (that is, “evolved)” from one “parent kind” is a clear-cut admission that macroevolution has been occurring since the animals boarded the ark.
When they turn into a bird like evolutionists claim happened to theropods, and evolve a completely new body plan, then macro evolution will have occurred, until then, that’s called micro evolution.
When radically incorrect information is posted on Christian message boards, the standard of Christianity is not only lowered, but its influence is depreciated and its character is brought into disrepute. The term macroevolution is correctly used to express speciation (species formation); the term microevolution is correctly used to express changes within a species.
I have here in my home library about 30 English language dictionaries, and I shall quote from one of them that adheres to the very highest standards of lexicography in giving word meanings as they are actually used among literate persons:
Definition of microevolution
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level
Definition of macroevolution
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
(Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2003)
In the cat family, we have macroevolution on a grand scale!
You reference to 1sy Barron Kelvin (W Thompson) is a complete farce. Not only did he have zero expertise in sciences such as geology or biology (he was an engineer who specialised in electrical science and thermodynamics) he actually remained a creationist all his life. The only theory he did contribute related to his field of study was to conclude that the mainstream scientific view of the very old age of the earth being hundreds of millions and indeed billions of years old was wrong. He claimed that thermodynamically speaking an earth more than 20 millions years ago was impossible. A very poor reference considering your rebuttal of the creation video you were earbashing and grossley misrepresenting when you wrote this post.20 minutes to 30 minutes
So in this segment I see a couple of individuals talking about this idea that there are small volcanoes that erupt today, and that there were bigger volcanoes that erupted in the past (which is undoubtedly true) that deposited greater quantities of lava.
Then there was this conclusion that because events of today, such as volcanic eruptions, might be smaller than some events of the past, that we therefore cannot use events of today to judge this expanse of time of the past.
Personally I think that this is kind of a baseless conclusion.
Was there something different about how volcanoes erupted in the past? No.
And what does that mean with regards to layers that have nothing to do with volcanoes? What is our excuse for them?
What exactly is the real argument here that the individual is making? It's kind of this open-ended thought that doesn't really have a particular technical case to it, it's just more of a broad idea and thought that isn't necessarily justified in anything that he has said.
Moving on...
Then the two individuals talk about radiometric dating and the one says that radiometric dating is where geologists get their idea that the Earth is millions of years old.
But actually this isn't true, scientists have had a number of ways of establishing that the Earth was old long before radiometric dating was ever discovered.
James Hutton was writing about an ancient earth in the 1700s with his observations at siccar point, while radiometric dating really has only been around since perhaps the 1900s? The idea that geologists judge the age of the Earth based on radiometric dating just isn't true. While radiometric dating might be an additional line of evidence for an old earth, it is not the original concept or body of evidence that led geologists to accept that the earth was. It's just icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
Kelvin also had his own estimates in the 1800s as well of an earth hundreds of millions of years old which also predated use of radioactive dating.
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin - Wikipedia
Many historical scientists recognized that the earth was ancient long before radioactive dating was ever discovered.
Age of Earth - Wikipedia
Then the individual talks about collecting samples and sending them to different laboratories for analysis, and receiving results that are different.
What should be said about this is that it's easy to get false data, but how does this individual address situations where multiple laboratories are giving the same result?
Again, it's not a matter of getting different results and debunking a method of analysis, but rather it's a question how you address results when they are yielding the same result? And I'm not talking about numbers one through 10 that happened to be similar, I'm talking about things that are parts per million or parts per billion in precision with each other.
View attachment 301263
Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education
Data from independent labs worldwide using various analytical methods for various different isotopes on various samples collected from various locations around the world.
The odds of these laboratories receiving identical results is practically non-existent.
Anyone can go outside with dirt on their hands, pick up a rock and send it into the laboratory and that contamination will yield a false result. And then say "look my result is wrong therefore the method is flawed!". But this just isn't reasonable.
I work with a lot of soil, groundwater and rock dating myself (among other things, air, vapor, surface water, pore water, etc, I do a lot of lab related sampling, or have over the years) and anyone can contaminate samples. Anyone can collect samples that aren't representative of native soil or of a particular rock formation. And this is why we have things like quality assurance and quality control practices. practices where we run blank samples and duplicates and method and equipment blanks and spiked duplicates etc.
So again, it isn't about a bunch of samples giving different results and disproving a method, because anyone can collect bad samples. The question is when quality control and quality assurance is implemented, how do you address scenarios where the analytical results are identical?
The video doesn't talk about any of these quality assurance and quality control practices. And unfortunately these are more of the technical details that the general public doesn't really know about because they don't do the work. So the general public isn't really able to determine if what this individual is saying is true or not because they aren't familiar with the actual work that we do.
This video and the individuals in this video don't talk about any quality control related details, in fact if we were to actually search for this person's research, we would find that their research is in absence of all of these quality control and quality assurance procedures. I know this because I happen to have already looked into this topic, and if anyone is curious about more information, feel free to ask.
Again, it's just an omission of information on the part of those producing the video. Though we shouldnt necessarily expect super high quality information from a YouTube film.
And then they go into discussion about some conspiracy about scientists seeking to take down the Bible because of evolution or something like this.
This final couple minutes of the video segment doesn't involve any technical arguments nor does it address quality control shortcomings of the topics they just discussed nor does it discuss how understanding the age of the Earth was established long before radiometric dating ever existed.
It's more just open claims and people just thinking about philosophical challenges, but they aren't really addressing any technical science, rather they're just kind of openly talking and speaking their thoughts on a topic.
Onward to the next ten minutes!
You reference to 1sy Barron Kelvin (W Thompson) is a complete farce. Not only did he have zero expertise in sciences such as geology or biology (he was an engineer who specialised in electrical science and thermodynamics) he actually remained a creationist all his life. The only theory he did contribute related to his field of study was to conclude that the mainstream scientific view of the very old age of the earth being hundreds of millions and indeed billions of years old was wrong. He claimed that thermodynamically speaking an earth more than 20 millions years ago was impossible. A very poor reference considering your rebuttal of the creation video you were earbashing and grossley misrepresenting when you wrote this post.
. He claimed that thermodynamically speaking an earth more than 20 millions years ago was impossible. A very poor reference considering your rebuttal of the creation video you were earbashing and grossley misrepresenting when you wrote this post.
Initially that was true, however if you read further, he reduced that 400million year to a maximum of 40 million.Also, this appears to be incorrect, he claimed that thermodynamically speaking the earth was no less than 20 million years old. I think you got that backwards.
Earth sciences - Geologic time and the age of Earth
"Thomson calculated that not less than 20 million and not more than 400 million years" (meaning that he calculated Earth's age to be between 20 million and 400 million years old.
Of course he didn't know about radioactive decay and how it would perpetuate and maintain heat in the earth, and thus his estimates were an undershot of what we know today.
Gilbert,
Lyell,
Darwin of course,
Hutton,
Wegener,
Vine,
Osborn,
Newberry,
Lecont,
Irving,
Playfair,
Dutton,
DuToit,
Cotta,
Hooke,
Probably steno as well,
Etc. We could go on and on with geologists that promoted uniformitarian principals. Writings of geological societies going back into the 1900s and beyond, describe openly, the gradual collapse of YEC in conjunction with catastrophism related beliefs.
Early geologist began recognizing the flaws in young earth creationism and catastrophism basically the moment they began critically investigating geology. The moment people recognize things like superposition and numerous layers of varying lithology, It became abruptly apparent that the Earth was old. So when later individuals like Kelvin came around, many scientists already knew that the earth was old and it was just a matter of determining exactly how old.
"Farce" he said...lol. if you want to see something that is a "farce", I'd be happy to point you to some YEC "academic" works.
Initially that was true, however if you read further, he reduced that 400million year to a maximum of 40 million.
My point is, he has no training in archaeology, biology, geology...how can you reference someone like that as being an expert on evolutionary science? He has zero credibility against creation scientists who are experts in their respective fields that say his initial assumptions were wrong.
Also, he remained a creationist...the article on him clearly states that fact.
All I was pointing out is that early scientists knew the earth was old long before radiometric dating was ever discovered.
That's all.
I never said Kelvin was a master geologist, I never said that he calculated the age to be 4.56 billion years either. I was simply giving examples, among the other dozen scientists added, of scientists who proposed, supported, or were simply aware of the earth being old.
Notice that Kelvin amounted to perhaps just a sentence or two in my post of multiple paragraphs. You're nitpicking at something largely irrelevant to the message I was conveying.
Here's a list of geologists who conducted research and supported uniformitarianism as well:
Is Genesis history?
Initially that was true, however if you read further, he reduced that 400million year to a maximum of 40 million.
My point is, he has no training in archaeology, biology, geology...how can you reference someone like that as being an expert on evolutionary science? He has zero credibility against creation scientists who are experts in their respective fields that say his initial assumptions were wrong.
Also, he remained a creationist...the article on him clearly states that fact.
Christians only please. Started here as last thread was bombarded by non Christians.
Fascinating documentary about the history of the earth from the pages of Genesis.
Before watching this video, i was of the strong belief of an 'old' earth.
After watching this video i am not so sure now. Definitely needs more thought now. Hope you enjoy watching it, as i did.
Just a statement on how the liar has been here since the garden, and comparing that to evolution. (which is basically saying God is a liar)
I think you mean evolution. That is Satanic doctrine.Every year, Satan dupes unwitting Christians into squandering hundreds of million dollars and hundreds of million man-hours fighting a theory that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or the Christians faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?