Lets try this again

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
This weird "formula" is just a case of doubling a bunch of numbers and conveniently arriving at around 4 billion, 

There is a little bit more to it than that. The universe is expanding at a consistant rate of acceleration. But the distance everything is apart from each other, double in half the time. It is the same with the population growth. The worlds population doubles in half the time. So at the time of Christ it took 1000 yeras for the world population to double, now it is taking about 30 years for the worlds population to double. This "wierd formula" does more than JUST arrive at a convient date of 4 billion years ago.

Remember the numbers are: 2,4,8,16,32,64,128,254,

Now, let us look at what science says took place at those dates. 8 million years ago was the Miocene Period. 32 million years ago was the Oligocene Period. 64 million years ago is when they say a metor hit the earth and ended the era of prehistoric animals. 128 million years ago began the Jurassic Period. 258 million years ago was the Permian Period.

Even if you pay no attention at all to the Bible, I would think that it is very interesting that the earth seems to be progressing at a rate that double in half the time. The formula applys to the expansion rate of the universe, it applys to population growth, but it also applys to the development history as you progress from one era to the next.

Work it the other way if you want. At 16 billion years the universe was formed. Then two days later at 4 billion years our earth and solar system had it's beginning. Then a day later at 2 billion years the first life began in the form of bacteria. Then a day later at 1 billion years the earth turned into a big snow ball.

A day later at 500 million years amphibians, frogs, toads, salamanders began to appear. A day later at 250 million years you have features such as teeth, hair, egg-laying. A day later at 125 million years Mammals begin to appear. A day later at 64 million years Early Cetaceans appear. A day after that at 32 million years Antarctica on Earth began to form. Day eight at 16 million years Cetaceans with large brains began to appear.

Even back in the 1200's before science was giving the age of the universe, Nachmanides figured it out using just the old testament to be 15 billion years old.




 

 

[fieldsofwind]

well pete... it isn't convincing evidence... to take 20 fossils out of the ground...(remember, these are pieced together from a large area) and to call it a fancy name... and then to elaborate with one's imagination as to what the other pieces of the skeleton could have made it look like... and then to call it a transition... is not convincing.

Take that with the information that is out there concerning a global flood... and geological columns being formed rapidly and or containing info that does not support evolution. I will post some of this later... but the point is that you really don't have much to stand on yourself.

Just pretend that the fossils you have were complete, and that they came from the same spot in the ground. Even if all of this is true... do you still think that these changes occured in one reproductive cycle... they are all very big changes, and I think that a study in molecular biology will support my thesis over yours... and these things are coming your way.

take care

FOW

 

[ifriit]

Good grief, FOW, there is no evidence to support the idea of a global flood. The sheer amount of released thermal energy from such an event would have utterly scorched life off the earth. No boat would have saved poor Noah from that!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
well pete... it isn't convincing evidence... to take 20 fossils out of the ground...(remember, these are pieced together from a large area) and to call it a fancy name... and then to elaborate with one's imagination as to what the other pieces of the skeleton could have made it look like... and then to call it a transition... is not convincing.

Well, I guess you need to learn more about how paleontologists do their jobs.

Take that with the information that is out there concerning a global flood... and geological columns being formed rapidly and or containing info that does not support evolution. I will post some of this later... but the point is that you really don't have much to stand on yourself.

As ifriit said, there isn't any evidence of a global flood. Certainly not one as recent as 4000 or so years ago. But if there was a global flood, maybe you can address those questions Morat asked on the previous page (post #74). Or my questions about the problem of inbreeding in this thread.

Just pretend that the fossils you have were complete, and that they came from the same spot in the ground. Even if all of this is true... do you still think that these changes occured in one reproductive cycle...

One reproductive cycle? I certainly don't think that. Paleontologists don't think that. Who thinks that? (besides you, I mean)

they are all very big changes, and I think that a study in molecular biology will support my thesis over yours...

A study in molecular biology, huh? You mean, like our DNA and chimp DNA is about 98% similar? That this lends support to the idea that we are decended from a common ancestor? Not to mention that this sort of thing was predicted before study of genetics even began? If you say so

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by JohnR7
There is a little bit more to it than that. The universe is expanding at a consistant rate of acceleration. But the distance everything is apart from each other, double in half the time. It is the same with the population growth. The worlds population doubles in half the time. So at the time of Christ it took 1000 yeras for the world population to double, now it is taking about 30 years for the worlds population to double. This "wierd formula" does more than JUST arrive at a convient date of 4 billion years ago.

You'll have to show me population statistics to back that up, because having looked a population growth charts, I don't see what you claim.

Remember the numbers are: 2,4,8,16,32,64,128,254,

I have a pretty good idea of what 2 to the nth power is (it tends to come up in programming a lot).

Now, let us look at what science says took place at those dates. 8 million years ago was the Miocene Period. 32 million years ago was the Oligocene Period. 64 million years ago is when they say a metor hit the earth and ended the era of prehistoric animals. 128 million years ago began the Jurassic Period. 258 million years ago was the Permian Period.

Um, the Jurassic Period began about 210 million years ago. The Permain period began closer to 300 million years ago. The Miocene Period began over 20 million years ago. Furthermore, all those "periods" are just arbitrary human classification (and there are a lot more of them than that, and they don't fit into your neat little numbering scheme).

Even if you pay no attention at all to the Bible, I would think that it is very interesting that the earth seems to be progressing at a rate that double in half the time. The formula applys to the expansion rate of the universe, it applys to population growth, but it also applys to the development history as you progress from one era to the next.

Can you actually back those claims up with hard evidence?

Work it the other way if you want. At 16 billion years the universe was formed. Then two days later at 4 billion years our earth and solar system had it's beginning. Then a day later at 2 billion years the first life began in the form of bacteria. Then a day later at 1 billion years the earth turned into a big snow ball.

Aside from your rounding errors (current estimates put the Earth at 4.55 billion years, so you'd have to round UP), your other dates for "events" are off. The earliest record we have of life on Earth dates back to over 3.5 billion years. I'm also unaware of any ice age 1 billion years ago (can anyone cite if that's true or not?).

A day later at 500 million years amphibians, frogs, toads, salamanders began to appear. A day later at 250 million years you have features such as teeth, hair, egg-laying. A day later at 125 million years Mammals begin to appear. A day later at 64 million years Early Cetaceans appear. A day after that at 32 million years Antarctica on Earth began to form. Day eight at 16 million years Cetaceans with large brains began to appear.

And you continue to insert arbitrary events into your little "timeline". Guess what? There are a lot of events that don't fit into neat little timeline categories that happen to be divisible by 2.

I've seen this "time dilation" argument (or whatever you want to call it) before. Unfortunately, when matched up with Genesis to explain real-world events, it doesn't hold.

 

[fieldsofwind]

Posted by Pete: "One reproductive cycle? I certainly don't think that. Paleontologists don't think that. Who thinks that? (besides you, I mean)"

Well pete... tell me... did it happen in two... did they go from one species to the next in three??? if they did... then there had to have been minor changes to the structure as a whole over whatever time period that you wish to insert. That is the transition... and that is what is not seen.

No evidence for the flood huh... and where would this amazing heat come from???

Regardless pete... you believe in evidence... and i believe a voice. I believe it despite the 'evidence' or how much of it is there. But just to keep this interesting... here's some info on the flood... the 'biggest' sources are not here.. but if the question keeps coming up... I'll post them too

http://www.icr.org/research/as/platetectonics.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_chalk.asp

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

http://www.rae.org/bits22.htm

 

[lithium.]

lol "No evidence for the flood huh... and where would this amazing heat come from???"

what heat are you talking about.

 

[fieldsofwind]

Posted by Pete: "A study in molecular biology, huh? You mean, like our DNA and chimp DNA is about 98% similar? That this lends support to the idea that we are decended from a common ancestor? Not to mention that this sort of thing was predicted before study of genetics even began? If you say so"

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/DNA Mutation Rates.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp


http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Fossilized DNA.html

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Which Came First.html


http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/The Human Eye.html

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Antibiotic Resistance.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt8.html

I remember you guys doing this to me a while back... I was thinking wow... alot of links to go through... oh well right!

 

[lithium.]

there you go again posting links to try to back you up.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
Well pete... tell me... did it happen in two... did they go from one species to the next in three??? if they did... then there had to have been minor changes to the structure as a whole over whatever time period that you wish to insert. That is the transition... and that is what is not seen.

Depending on the species involved, generations between subsequent speciation can vary. There's no fixed answer, but it can take thousands of generations. Now, there aren't preserved fossils of every single generation in a species (paleontologists would be so fortunate!), so they have to work with what evidence there is. But if you examine various evolutionary lines for different species, there is evidence of morphological change within the fossils.

Regardless pete... you believe in evidence... and i believe a voice. I believe it despite the 'evidence' or how much of it is there.

Fine. But (as others have said before), if you've already made up your mind and no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you otherwise, then your purpose in this debate is pointless. You can assert young earth creationism all you want, but if your final argument rests on "I just believe", then you've got no argument.

But just to keep this interesting... here's some info on the flood... the 'biggest' sources are not here.. but if the question keeps coming up... I'll post them too

<links snipped>

You still haven't addressed Morat's 5 questions about the flood back in post #74. He was asking specific questions, which, if there's all this evidence for a global flood, shouldn't be hard to address. Your failure to even comment on them lends me to believe that you cannot address them (and that doesn't do any good for your position on trying to defend a global flood).

 

[lithium.]

what he said.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
<links snipped>

I remember you guys doing this to me a while back... I was thinking wow... alot of links to go through... oh well right!

fieldsofwind, now you're just being plain childish.

Do any of those links happen to deal with what I posted? Or did you just throw them up because they have the acronym 'DNA' in them?

I don't condone the behavior of "link flooding" (or whatever you want to call it), so if you feel others have done it you, then they were in the wrong. But that doesn't give you justification to commit this behavior yourself (I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right", right?).

 

[lithium.]

calling it link flooding is ok, i didn't even think about a name for it. lol

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by seesaw
calling it link flooding is ok, i didn't even think about a name for it. lol

Heh, well I'm sure there's probably a proper name for it somewhere, but I was too lazy to try to find out

 

[fieldsofwind]

Pete... my time is very limited where I am.... and I have already told you the reason that I posted... if you took the time to read the links... they were all about the moleuclar biology/chemistry aspect of why evolution didn't happen.

That was my purpose... nothing more... nothing less.

I will address morat's brilliant points... as soon as I find some answers...

Got to go on guard for now though... so it'll have to be later

take care

FOW

 

[lithium.]

but you don't care about our answers cause you have already made up your mind.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Pete... my time is very limited where I am.... and I have already told you the reason that I posted... if you took the time to read the links... they were all about the moleuclar biology/chemistry aspect of why evolution didn't happen.

That was my purpose... nothing more... nothing less.

Well, your purpose here just seems to be to try to get people to read a bunch of creationist literature. While I can't speak for everyone, I already do that of my own free will (mostly from AIG & ICR). At the same time, I also read the corresponding evolutionist literature (a lot of it being rebuttals to creationist arguments). Based on my assessment of both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution, and various other sciences creationists try to discredit, don't seem to be in danger of being tossed out any time soon.

(I should also point out that when I first got interested in the whole creation/evolution debate, I took a lot of creationist arguments at face value. My thinking at the time was, "Wow, evolution DOES have all sorts of problems, and maybe it's not true". But, as I began investigating those arguments, I realized how flawed they actually were.)

Anyway, fieldsofwind, genetics is a BIG subject and not one I plan to get into heavily anytime soon (I'm still trying to understand other aspects of evolution). So, you'll just have to find someone else to discuss those articles with.

 

[fieldsofwind]

well pete... we finally agree! Genetics is a bit more difficult to discuss... however... it is the one that has made the most 'evolutionist' scientists 'change their minds' about evolution.

And you know that there is evidence for the flood... i've got a whole document I would past if I could... can't find the link... but its HUGE. There is 'evidene' for both sides of the arguement... I bet that you are mainly convinced by the radiometric dating techniques that have supposedly 'proven' the earths age. Just think about those articles that I posted... relaying how pressure can affect all of the variables pertaining to radiometric dating... heat can also. (even the isochron 'same time' methods) Do you ever wonder what the effects of the Flood could have had there??? Dd you not ever think about the power of God, and how He can make things happen (such as the animals on the ark or the ... well how about the creation of the universe) even though they would seem impossible??? Isn't that part of His nature... to do the impossible.

I'll have more info to write on later pete... and we can continue this... I think my sides got a heck of a lot of 'support' ... even though i kinda wish it didn't. Then... it would only be faith... and that would be beautiful.

 

[lithium.]

DUDE, if there was any evidence of a global flood science would have already accepted it. And Genetics is what make alot of people believe in evolution, cause you can see evolution in our dna, and cells.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind

And you know that there is evidence for the flood... i've got a whole document I would past if I could... can't find the link... but its HUGE. There is 'evidene' for both sides of the arguement...

fieldsofwind, if you think that your ability to post a "huge" document is impressive, think again. I could refer you to Stephen Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" (it clocks in at 1400+ pages). Pretty huge, huh?

Anyway, I've seen a lot of creationist arguments in favor of a flood. Some have been debated here. Fact is, when scrutinized, they just don't hold up. (And I'm still waiting to see you respond to Morat's 5 questions about the flood).

I bet that you are mainly convinced by the radiometric dating techniques that have supposedly 'proven' the earths age. Just think about those articles that I posted... relaying how pressure can affect all of the variables pertaining to radiometric dating... heat can also. (even the isochron 'same time' methods) Do you ever wonder what the effects of the Flood could have had there???

I've seen this "flood could have affected radiometric dating" argument. IF there was evidence of a global flood 4000 years ago, then I'm sure geologists would take that in to account. But the thing is, there is no evidence (at least, no evidence that stands up to scrutiny).

If you want to debate flood geology, pick a specific argument in favor of the flood and start a thread on it.

Dd you not ever think about the power of God, and how He can make things happen (such as the animals on the ark or the ... well how about the creation of the universe) even though they would seem impossible??? Isn't that part of His nature... to do the impossible.

The power of God is irrelevant to issues of science. Science does not (and cannot, by definition) deal with issues of the supernatural. What it can do, is look at real-world evidence and try to figure out how that evidence fits in with everything else we know about the world.

You don't need to preach to me, btw. I'm interested in theological matters, as well as scientific ones (I own a couple copies of the Bible and read them time to time). Why do you think I'm on this forum in the first place?