Thousands.....not Billions

[llucas]

You know... I almost thought this was a real thread... Alright, good joke guys... Let's go grab some pizza now...

 

[Big Rob]

Admit it. When you said six years, you meant 45 minutes.

 

[f U z ! o N]

So there ARE people who think gravity is a myth, and that instead intelligent falling is responsible for me not floating of into space!

that was a joke site. intelligent falling is fake.

 

[Nathan Poe]

that was a joke site. intelligent falling is fake.

Fake, perhaps, but yet another example of Poe's Law.

 

[Arafax]

Here we go. Some good posts. Some funny posts. Yeah, I have unfortunately heard it all before. But I WILL ask questions though, if I don't understand something or would like to learn more. I apologize in advance for what is to be a LONG post.

Quote by Arafax
Scientifically speaking, we don't just say 'Oh God did it'. No, what it seems is a constant is that Evolutionists (can I call you that? any preference?) have no idea what a Creationist is. They have no idea what research can be done.

You seem to have this block in your mind that can't let you see past GOD in Creationism. Creationism bases itself in the assumption that God created everything.


Quote by nvxplorer
I’m assuming the irony was unintentional?

You missed the defining word. I said, "we don't just say 'Oh God did it'. Meaning we don't just leave it at that. We support our statements with science.

Quote by Mikeynov

Wow, a young earth creationist who managed to literally define everything incorrectly. I've certainly never seen that before.

Quote by Mikeynov
Disclaimer: I never made the pretense of not being insulting, though I try to avoid being arrogant.

But when did creationists get this lamebrained idea that the big bang is somehow anti-theistic?

What's near-infinitely ironic is that OEC's claim that the big bang is irrefutable evidence of God, and YEC's claim that it's pseudo-science BS attempting to disprove God.

Hey man, I saw nothing wrong with your first post. It's all good! Well, except for the point you were making of course! Perhaps you could define the terms better than? I would like to see your interpretation of them.

As for your second post, now that makes me laugh. In particular, "But when did creationists get this lamebrained idea that the big bang is somehow anti-theistic?"

Yes, what is the fuss about? Well, Biblically there is a BIG fuss. But Old Earth Creationist twist the Bible to fit a dud of a theory. They conform. They compromise. They in essence 'chicken out'. They do so for no good reason. They come to the Bible with their idea instilled on their minds and they then TWIST the Bible and its obvious meaning to fit their theory. That is just plain wrong.

The Bible even says so. I find OE Creationists funnier than Evolutionists. Seriously, OEC has nothing to support it but a contortion of a perfectly uncontorted Scripture! I have less respect for them than straight up Evolutionists. But hey, they can believe what they want. Hey, is there a OEC here? I would be interested in engaging in debate with that view too.

2 Corinthians 4:2, ‘Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.’

Proverbs 8:8-9, ‘All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all straightforward to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge.’

Quote by Arafax
Most evolutionists have no business defining what Creationists believe in...
[...]
Oh, yeah, please don't forget to use the PREFIXES of evolution I gave in the beginning of the post.


Quote by nvxplorer
More irony.

But, again you miss the point. I can define evolution because I UNDERSTAND exactly what it is in its various incarnations.

Quote by notto
Define 'kind'. How can I tell if macroevolution has occured if I can't get a definition of kind? If you want to discuss evolution and you are trying to define terms for the debate, you are going to have to mention speciation (macroevolution) in there somewhere. I notice it is absent from your list of terms. Considering the name of Darwins book, it would be a good idea to have the concept of speciation be central to the discussion, don't you think?

Well, I admit, the definition of 'Kind' is tricky, but its meaning represents the animal kingdom in a better constitution than 'species'. Look up 'species', think about it and ponder what is wrong with the definition.

You may rant on how the definition of 'kind' isn't specific enough and blah, blah, blah. I have heard it all before. But the commonly used term, species, has its own problems. I will start off by talking about 'kind'.

Kind - a broad taxonomic category whose members can interbreed. But not in all cases (such as a mule cannot breed yet it is the same kind. It's parents being a horse and a donkey, also some species of rabbits cannot interbreed, yet are the same kind). Originate from a common ancestor. ex. Six species of Equus (such as Zebras, horses, donkeys). All of which can interbreed.

I would say that kind is very similiar to the definition of family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)

That is the best defintion I can come up with right now, but I may revise it later.

It is really quite interesting. So, you got the defintion of 'species' yet? Here, I will be a pal and post it for you!

Species - taxonomic group whose members can interbreed. A particular type of plant or animal. Plants and animals can breed only with members of their own species.

Well, there you go. Now..... where...... is...... Waldo? Right here!! "whose members can interbreed"

But what is that it says? They CAN'T interbreed with other species?! That is preposterous! Well, apparently the definition IS preposterous.
A male African lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris) can mate to produce a liger. The reverse cross produces a tigon. Wolves and dogs are considered different species, but they can interbreed. Or how about this?

In 1985, Hawaii’s Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins and killer whales).

Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species. Other genera in the group are much more alike than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii, which suggests that the 12 living genera might have all descended from the original created kind.

There is countless examples so I won't tire you (nor myself) by listing them all.

I found this next excerpt from the Evowiki website (a resource for evolutionists). Go here if you wanna check out the site. You may like it. Use it as a resource for your evolution debates or something. http://evowiki.org

I go there often. Interesting site. I disagree with almost everything, but hey! It is still a good site. I like to be informed, what can I say. But yeah, I found this next excerpt from there and I will explain it.

Kind - Two individuals are of the same kind if, and only if, they share a common ancestor.

This definition of 'kind' is not unreasonable; it even provides an implicit methodology for determining which 'kind' a creature belongs to -- just figure out which critters do or do not share ancestors in common with the creature you're interested in.

Sadly, Creationists will never use this definition, for their dogma demands that humans have an origin completely separate and distinct from any and every other life form on Earth, and the evidence at hand clearly indicates that the species homo sapiens shares ancestors in common with a number of other species. Creationists refer to the vague (undefined) version of 'kind' as cited in Genesis 1.

I actually was quite surprised when I happened upon this little gem. They pretty much prove my point. The definition of kind is reasonable. For exactly the same reasons as I have already stated above. BUT they than say some whacked out things about Creation dogma!! Like, what? I don't get where they get that. They again, clearly don't understand Creationism. But whatever. I found it interesting though.

Now onto some VERY interesting stuff you guys posted.

Quote by Forever42
And don't those "six types of evolution" come straight from Hovind himself?

Quote by Army of Juan
If this is true then I can say that you, Arafax, have just wasted 6 years of your life.

It is interesting how you guys bash Hovind. Oh, yes, I have been been observing these boards for a long time, I know your jabs and kicks at Hovind. Hovind is actually a great guy. He is extremely intelligent and perceptive. He knows his stuff. What I find amusing is how you, as well as others, insult his integrity and all that. You insult his methods, the information he puts forth and all that.

You, as well as others, consider him a push over and his 'pseudo-science could never hold up against real science'. Crazy thing is, none of you lip-service extraordinaires (as well as plenty of others) debate him. Why not? You 'got the goods', why not challenge him? He is more than willing to do a debate. Make it an event! Publicly humiliate him if you think you got him done for.

I actually took some of that from a reply Hovind has to critics like you. He hears you guys, but none of you are willing to take him on. Crazy. I have seen him pick apart, and I mean PICK APART evolutionists on various occasions. They blunder, they have no clue what they are doing. It is a beautiful thing. The crazy thing is evolutionist rely on circular reasoning in their debates. They also seem to lack references in their debates as well.

I am not going to say Hovind is the formost expert on the subject, but he DOES know how to relay the Creationist argument in an effective manner, and in debate that matters greatly. I don't fully agree with everything he has to say, but they are minor quibbles.

Hovind is the first Creationist I came across, but I picked my side before I even heard of him. Most of my studies have been from school textbooks, science journals, and documentaries, with some Hovind to make me laugh at how messed evo is. I know some of you have said you 'watch hovind to get a laugh'. I know you mean to laugh at how 'ridiculous' Hovind is. Well evolutionists have EXACTLY the same affect on me.

Seriously, your arguments against his teachings are weak at best.

Quote by Maxwell511
I'm also curious to know where he got his Ph.D.(in reference to Dr.Humphrey)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp

The end of part one.

 

[Arafax]

Part 2

Quote by TheBear

What is a 'kind'?


Bonus Question -
How many 'mirco-evolutions' need to occur before reaching 'macro-evolution' status?

I already answered the first question. I know you guys always jump on that band-wagon. Have a fun ride!

Ooohh! A bonus question! Whaddo I get if I answer it? Ah, whatever. Well, considering millions upon hundreds of millions of micro evolution changes are needed to change, for example, a dinosaur to a bird (according to your evolution theory), my answer would have to be 0.

Considering no matter how many MICRO-evolutions occur you will never come out with a different animal. You will only get a different dinosaur. Quality control. Surely you 'hovind-hunters' have heard his wonderful explaination on that? It is basic, yet highly effective.

Micro evolution is quality control. Like putting a Honda through the best quality control facility of all time. It will not come out, at the end, a helicopter. It will only come out a better Honda. Gods way of keeping everything tip-top shape I suppose.

Genetic information is NEVER added to the DNA. Never. Now, what does that mean? Well, that means it doesn't get more complex. It only goes downhill or neutral. For most mutations, genetic information is lost. No matter how little is lost, it still contradicts what evolution teaches. Evolution relys on the gaining of genetic information from who knows where. But it doesn't happen the way it teaches.

For example. Excerpt from AiG in regards to the latest on Chimp/human DNA research.
In most previous studies, they have announced 98-99% identical DNA. However, these were for gene coding regions (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly 3 billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, all of the previous work has been based on only a portion of the total DNA.

Last week, in a special issue of Nature devoted to chimpanzees, researchers report the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome

No doubt, this is a stunning achievement for science: deciphering the entire genetic make up of the chimpanzee in just a few years. Researchers called it “the most dramatic confirmation yet” of Darwin’s theory that man shared a common ancestor with the apes. One headline read: “Charles Darwin was right and chimp gene map proves it.

So what is this great and overwhelming “proof” of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers claim that there is little genetic difference between us (only 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percentage difference that has been claimed for years! The reality is, no matter what the percentage difference, whether 2%, 4%, or 10%, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right.

Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40-45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man.

These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species.

Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations-a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma.”

This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.

Quite interesting indeed. I find it funny though. The difference gap got larger yet they claim huge success. Funny stuff.

Quote by alerj123
Let me give you a little word of advice, Arafax. How about you post one argument at a time so we can rip them apart one by one. Do you expect us to individualy refute every point that every site you gave us makes on one post? c'mon, it just doesn't work that way. So, choose your best argument, and start a thread on that.

I did start off a little broad didn't I? Sorry about that. But hey, I can do a multi-faceted debate, keeps it more interesting. But I do see your point. As for the 'rip them apart one by one' thing, I welcome you guys to do your worst. Like I said, I debate to learn too!

You don't have to refute everything in the links I give, how about this. Just refute what I post. The links are FYI. I will probably quote them sooner or later anyway. But I still recommend you check them out. I can feel my IQ go up when I read that stuff.

As for my best argument, yeah, I can't decide, so that is why I made this broad topic.

Quote by random_guy

Wow, I have never seen such a bad definition of the Big Bang. Big Bang teaches everything came from nothingness? Last time I checked, the BB teaches that all matter/energy started out at a singularity.

LOL! Yeah, I can do that too: I never heard the word singularity used in such an improper fashion! Last time I checked singularities were strangeness by virtue of being remarkable or unusual.(ends sarcasm)

But yeah, isn't that Hawking who came up with that? I may be wrong. But anyway, you bashed the definition without telling me WHY it was wrong. All that you gave was another view of the Big Bang theory. Both are taught. Check a textbook. This is JUST like another debate I did awhile back. Except they told me that the singularity idea was 'not what we teach!'. Yeah, funny stuff.

I have a question, is the 'spinning dot of intense energy and matter' the singularity you speak of? I am just wondering.

Quote by random_guy
I've spent the last 4 years educating myself and picked up a math and comp sci degree. If you've spent 6 years to come up with this, you just wasted 6 years of your life

Well, congrats on getting a good education! That is some impressive stuff. But alas, the definition twas not mineth to claim. It is from AiG, but is exactly accurate to what MANY textbooks have to say about the Big Bang. Prove me wrong. Look it up. Research. Ask around. Throw alphaghetti. I don't care! I stand by my definitions. But if you prove me wrong, I will be happy to learn something!

Quote by Arafax
I am back with my topic as I promised in another thread. No 'running away with my tail between my legs' as someone so eloquently put.

Quote by Illuminatus
After reading the first third of your post, running away with your tail behind your legs would be the only way to improve my opinion of your intellectual capability.

Ah. There we go again. The empty pot-shots. Care to put some substance to your blather?

Quote by Maxwell511
The first two articles that he proposed obviously have data with is false. I haven't read past this and won't until some tries to explain to me how Dr. Humphrey is not a liar.

Well, I hope the link to Dr. Humprey's bio helped. He is a well accomplished scientist and has gads of experience in his field. No fraud. The guy is a scientist, and a great one at that, whether you like it or not. That data in which he has in the articles you mention is not false at all. Read more of it.

You will understand how it is indeed correct. I read the 'talk origins' refuttal, which was pitiful at best. It made minor nitpicks. Nothing consequencial. Good try though. If you have any direct problems with it let me know exactly what it is and I will get an explaination for you.

Quote by f U z ! o N

think the Big Bang Theory is a joke eh? ever read up on Cosmic Microwave Background? (CMB) why is it that the temperature of 2.725K can be found all throughout the universe? i think you need to read more about the Big Bang Theory.

Oh, so THAT is what the big bang theory is! Oh, thank you good sir for enlightening me! We don't have the internet under the rock I live under on Mars.(ends sarcasm)
Just joking with you man. I have diagnosed myself with chronic sarcasmitis.

But on to your reply. Nice try though. Much respect for trying.
Background radiation has been explained in a much more accurate fashion than to just have been the 'afterimage' of the big bang. Actually, the big bang may have predicted it, but it did not do so accurately, when others theories predicted CMB but with greater accuracy.

For example, the late Sir Arthur Eddington had already given an accurate explanation for this temperature found in space (in his book The Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926))
He explains that the radiation is not from a big bang, but actually from all the heat sources in the Universe. He calculated the minimum temperature of which any body in space would cool to, using the fact that these bodies are always exposed to distant starlight. He got a value of 3.18 K, later refined to 2.8.

In 1933, Erhard Regener showed that the intensity of the radiation coming from the plane of the Milky Way was essentially the same as that coming from a plane normal to it. He obtained a value of 2.8 K, which he felt would be the temperature characteristic of intergalactic space.

His prediction came more than thirty years before Penzias and Wilson’s discovery of the cosmic microwave background. The radiation that Big Bang theorists predicted was supposed to be much hotter than what was actually discovered. Gamow started his prediction at 5 K, and just a few years before Penzias and Wilson’s discovery, suggested that it should be 50 K.

Here is an excerpt of 'The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang' by Tom Van Flandern.
The amount of radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption.

Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform while doing so. It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium.

This argument alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct.

None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big Bang was close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50 K made in 1961, just two years before the actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball” becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space
Van Flandern, Tom (2002), “The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang,”

Quite interesting.

Quote by Ryal Kane

Okay, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt for now. But keep in mind that you have posted so much that it is hard for there to be debate. It's better to pick a single point and discuss that.

Well, how about this. You pick one of my arguments and go with it. I like to take it all on. Although it is harder and time consuming. Hey, the ball is rolling, their is no stopping it. So you don't need to reply to everything. Just pick one of my arguments and have at it!

Quote by Ryal Kane

What course are you planning on taking and where? If you are planning on taking it at a main stream university you're probably in for a rude awakening.

Quote by Ryal Kane

from POINT 1
I could define Christianity as a religion that worships Flying Purple Pumpkins. But wouldn't it make far more sense to listen to Christians than to me?
and wouldn't it make more sense to listen to the accepted scientific definition of the Theory of Evolution, which is different to all of the above you listed

OK, you for some reason miss the reason for the definitions. OK, they are not a 'view' or anything. They are truthful and accurate definitions. You can disagree with the little side notes on them if you want, but the definitions are accurate. I put them forth to make it easier in the debate to give a name to what we are explaining.

It eliminates confusion into what we are talking about. The Theory of Evolution would fall under MACRO evo. Simple and effective. Not an argument for nor against evolution. Just making it easy so there is no confusion, because it happens.

You may define Christianity anyway you want, but I could prove that definition wrong. You can't prove the definitions I gave wrong, because they are just simplified definitions straight from the textbooks. So in essence, they are not from Creationists. Plus, since when do definitions have to come from what it defines? Definitions should come from those who UNDERSTAND what it is they are defining.

Like I said, they are not an attack on evolution, so why the big fuss? I was just stating the facts. Yes, it is from Hovind, but it is an effective tool in a debate, for both sides.

Quote by Ryal Kane

POINT 2
Please define Kind. Give a clear definition. Give a definition which allows us to clearly distinguish one kind from another.

OK, that band-waggon is getting full already. But whatever. I gave you a definition that I hope satisfies you guys. Please, you too, define species and tell me what is wrong with it. I already stated what is wrong with it, but I would like to hear it from you. You know it isn't right. Or, well, the definition may be right, but the way of determining what is a species is not. Hmmm.... food for thought.

End of Part 2

 

[Arafax]

Quote by Ryal Kane

POINT 3
Macro and Micro are also Creationist terms. I have seen them defined as Species, Kind and an assortment of others. The terms assume some barrier that limits how many changes can accumulate. It's like saying I can count to ten, one at a time, but you will never reach a billion ecause that's Macro Addition. Evolution is just evolution.

I answered this too. You assume, and I shall say again, ASSUME, that the changes build a different animal all together. That has never been observed. You believe that all you want. That is why I call it MACRO evo. MICRO is the changes you speak of, but they only alter within a kind.

Quote by Ryal Kane
Okay. I hope you're right. And until youstart acting badly I'll play nice.

Good to hear! Don't worry, I will behave.

Quote by Ryal Kane
It's not so much a matter of IF God created but HOW. For it to be scientific you cannot invoke the supernatural.

The Creationist model is based around HOW God would have created something. There are different facets to Creationism. It looks at 'Did God do it?'. They use observation and scientific studies to determine that it must have been created by an ID.

They will then use the Creationist model to verify how *subject in question* would have been created by God (using Biblical Creationism). The model makes predictions on what they should find based on the assumption of HOW God may have done it via Biblical Creationism. No more supernatural than the Big Bang, Macro Evo, or Organic Evolution.

Quote by Ryal Kane
Unfortunately the mission statments of these groups paints a different story.
Any evidence contradictiory to the view of a 6000 year old earth MUST be wrong. Surely you see what is wrong with that.

Well the Biblical Creationist model relies on the 6000 year premise. It uses it as a basis. Much like the Big Bang makes assumptions in order to make their theory seem plausible. But Biblical Creationism supports the Biblical view. So it obviously assumes that 6000 years is correct. That is the point. It isn't that much different from any other theory. The 6000 year old premise is falsifiable. But it is far from falsified.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Some Big Bang theorist say that the Universe is 17 Billion years old, calculating that that age is vital to various components of their theory. They are on the assumption that 17 billion years is correct and everything else is wrong. Well, until it is shown otherwise. But if it is wrong then various components of their theory would have to be scrapped. Same thing could happen to Creationism. I do not say that it couldn't. But I have faith that 6000 years is correct.

I really enjoyed your reply Ryal Kane. It was the most comprehensive thus far. Good stuff.

Quote by Mystman
I take it you've never heard of nuclear fusion? I've been in a test fusion reactor in england. 2 hydrogen -> 1 helium.

WOWZERS! You have been to one? Well, I saw one on TV once and I know that it takes 4 hydrogen to form helium. If you don't believe me go to this kids page!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/SecondaryHydrogen.html
You may learn a little about what you are trying to defend. But hey don't worry, I am just kidding with you (although I wasn't kidding that it does take 4 hydrogen to form helium). I suck at numbers so I understand your mistake. But take a look at this stuff in support of what I was originally talking about.

No way to produce complex atoms. Aside from hydrogen and helium, which are quite simple, there is no way that loose gas in space can form itself into complex atoms (elements above helium).

No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.

Quote by Mystman
So there ARE people who think gravity is a myth, and that instead intelligent falling is responsible for me not floating of into space!

Good joke. But dude, this is something I figured out in Elemenatary school. This is one of the first things I determined was wrong with the Big Bang theory. I thought it was quite obvious.

Here are some points to ponder.

No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity. The popular theory is that stars form from vast clouds of gas and dust through gravitational contraction. Because of heat pressuregas and dust clouds will expand, not contract.

"To many astronomers it seems reasonable that stars could form from these clouds of gas. Most astronomers believe that the clouds gradually contract under their own weight to form stars. This process has never been observed, but if it did occur, it would take many human lifetimes. It is known that clouds do not spontaneously collapse to form stars. The clouds possess considerable mass, but they are so large that their gravity is very feeble. Any decrease in size would be met by an increase in gas pressure that would cause a cloud to re-expand". - Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy

I could go on forever, but I won't.

Quote by Jet Black

Can you give a short list of some of the best textbooks and articles you have come across, and some of the most recent articles, thanks.

This link shows you stuff about my favorite documentary 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life'. Great documentary.
http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm

Textbooks, well they are all pretty much the same. Just regular school Science and Biology textbooks. Nothing special.

I get most of my articles and info for Creationism from Answers in Genesis and ICR.

I also watch the Daily Planet on the Discovery Channel. Good show with the latest science news. Lots of evolutionist stuff though, but like I said before, I like to stay informed.

Also http://www.evowiki.org is a good resource as I have posted previously.

As well as http://www.sciam.com/ The site bores me mostly, but I force myself to read it.

I really like this article http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842 very informational.
I can't think of anymore off the top of my head, and there is way more.

Quote by Nathan Poe

Doesn't this presume that the geneologies are complete and accurate? On what do you base that assumption?

It does I suppose, but I am no scholar. So I could not tell you all the details on that. But from what I understand it is a very comprehensive and accurate geneology.

Quote by Arafax

So using this, Creationists came up with the 6000 years old Earth premise. But it is not without merit. Science is providing MUCH evidence to support the Young Earth Creation model.
So do you see? The age of the earth can be determined Biblically, than based on that, many things begin to make sense. Many things in which we observe in the physical universe.

Quote by Nathan Poe

Such as...?

Such as much of what I have posted. Accurate results found in the physical universe based on the Creationism model.

Quote Split Rock

Well, that O.P. was way too long. I suggest making your O.P.s smaller and stick to one or two points.

Whoops. Sorry, again. You guys replied really fast and I have to reply to everyone of you guys or you may get all riled up or something that I missed you.

Quote by Split Rock

But what it really calls for is something no Professional Creationist or person in this forum have succeeded in doing... defining what a "Kind" is, and how we can tell "Kinds" apart.

True, I could not find a clear straight up definition of Kind by any creationist. I looked. So I had to make do with looking things up and looking in the dictionary and my encyclopedia than those steps all over gain various times. But like I said, the definition of Species is less satisfactory. You cannot tell me you could look at two different species of rabbits (without knowing that they are different species) and TELL ME that they are different species by using your definition of species. BUT you could do so with the definition of Kind.

Quote by Caphi
Er, not to nitpick, but helium is created out of four hydrogen atoms. The process emanates four photons, as the two "extra" electrons annihilate themselves against the two positrons emanated as two protons convert themselves into neutrons. Just clarifying here.

Hey, nice that somebody else caught it too or I might not be believed about that either!

Quote Big Rob

Admit it. When you said six years, you meant 45 minutes.

Sorry, I actually believe in literal interpretations of my words as well as the Bible's. What is with people and twisting the meaning of time? (just joking with you, kind of a jab at OEC's) No, it has been about 6 years.

OK, again sorry that it is SO long, but there were alot of replies. Hey, I am not complaining about having to type so much, I am sure it isn't so hard to read. Like I said before, you can just reply to what you feel best at doing so instead of having me cover less. Yeah, I am done for now.

 

[Illuminatus]

Yeah, I have unfortunately heard it all before.

Too bad you didn't listen.

I apologize in advance for what is to be a LONG post.

It's okay. That's the least of things you need to apologize for.

I can define evolution because I UNDERSTAND exactly what it is in its various incarnations.

In that case, your definition of "understand" is about as accurate as your definition of evolution.

Well, I admit, the definition of 'Kind' is tricky, but its meaning represents the animal kingdom in a better constitution than 'species'. Look up 'species', think about it and ponder what is wrong with the definition.

From Dictionary.com:
spe·cies[font=verdana,sans-serif][/font] (sp

sh

z, -s

z)
n. pl. species Biology.

1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy.

Kind - a broad taxonomic category whose members can interbreed.

kind
n.

1. A group of individuals linked by traits held in common.
2. A particular variety; a sort

Hovind is actually a great guy.

Well, unlike Fred Phelps, he doesn't beat his children senseless, so it's theoretically possible. However, what you (and most creationists) don't seem to realize is that in science, we don't judge based on quality of character. We judge based on quality of material.

He knows his stuff.

*snortle*

What I find amusing is how you, as well as others, insult his integrity and all that.

Go Google for "the dissertation that Kent Hovind doesn't want you to read".

You insult his methods, the information he puts forth and all that.

No, we point out that his methods are faulty and his information is tripe.

You, as well as others, consider him a push over and his 'pseudo-science could never hold up against real science'.

Crazy thing is, none of you lip-service extraordinaires (as well as plenty of others) debate him. Why not? You 'got the goods', why not challenge him? He is more than willing to do a debate. Make it an event! Publicly humiliate him if you think you got him done for.

Do you debate with the crazy guy on the street corner who thinks he's Jesus? No? Then why should scientists debate Kent Hovind? Hovind's no more a scientist than the crazy guy is the incarnation of God.

I actually took some of that from a reply Hovind has to critics like you.

So, in other words, you plagarized? I don't see a source referenced.

He hears you guys, but none of you are willing to take him on. Crazy. I have seen him pick apart, and I mean PICK APART evolutionists on various occasions. They blunder, they have no clue what they are doing. It is a beautiful thing. The crazy thing is evolutionist rely on circular reasoning in their debates.

They also seem to lack references in their debates as well.

Oh, the irony!

Hovind is the first Creationist I came across, but I picked my side before I even heard of him. Most of my studies have been from school textbooks, science journals, and documentaries, with some Hovind to make me laugh at how messed evo is.

So you decided on a position, and then went looking for support for it. Well, you're qualified for a job at AiG, at least.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp

Here's a little word from a physics student. One can very happily be a YEC and an atomic/nuclear physicist, or a laser physicist. Why? Because it doesn't matter if the earth is ten seconds or ten quintillion years old; it doesn't impact on your area of work. A doctorate in laser physics doesn't mean you know anything about cosmology.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

MACRO Evolution - the change of one kind of animal to another in a great amount of time. i.e. reptile to bird

Actually, you're a little off. If I may, I'd like to speak scientifically. You have to look at the different levels.

Kingdom

Phylum

Class

Order

Family

Genus

Species

You've just compared the theory of evolution to something as silly as a change in Phylum, but actually all of the common theories of evolution only suggest a change at the Genus level. So a Reptile to bird conversion in no way represents the way scientists are looking at things.

Might I say, what a wonderfully long post you've made....No,....really ....I really like the way you've used the copy and paste function off of the Ron Wyatt website.

I might just give you rep points for keeping me entertained.

P.S. Look up some fact....and I do stress the word FACTS...on carbon-14 dating

 

[Patzak]

First post!!

I'm not very well versed at science, but I think I can address two of your points:

I answered this too. You assume, and I shall say again, ASSUME, that the changes build a different animal all together. That has never been observed. You believe that all you want. That is why I call it MACRO evo. MICRO is the changes you speak of, but they only alter within a kind.

Speciation has been observed, but you probably mean change to a different "kind". I don't know about that, but even if it were never observed, it could be reasonably inferred from what you term microevolution. You acknowledge the fact that small changes happen and constitute microevolution - the burden is on you to point out a mechanism that somehow stops these small changes to build up to a large (speciation-level) change. IOW: if a wolf micro-evolves into a chihuahua on one hand and into a great dane on the other, what is it that is going to stop them from evolving further in opposite directions to the point of being incapable of interbreeding?

No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity. The popular theory is that stars form from vast clouds of gas and dust through gravitational contraction. Because of heat pressuregas and dust clouds will expand, not contract.

You've got it backwards - only after a star has been formed is there a force to oppose gravity. Gas clouds fall inwards due to gravity, there is no force to stop the falling until the density (and temperature) is high enough to start nuclear fusion - the energy thus released is what keeps the star from collapsing further (i'm not sure whether it would go straight to a black hole - probably not, strong nuclear force and all that).

 

[Elduran]

To follow on from Illuminatu's post, it is very interesting to look closer at Hovind's methods of winning these debates. He floods his audience with so many points in such a short time that they accept that some of them MUST be true. From that, I imagine they extrapolate that most of what he says is true. Then because of the format that these debates take his opponent is unable to counter all of his points scientifically in their alloted time, which of course leaves Hovind looking like he has outwitted his opponent. Hovind, of course, usually ignores all the points his opponent makes and instead goes back to one of his usual spiels, which again makes him seem more confident.

However, he utterly refuses to undertake a written debate, where the opponent would have time to take apart every single one of his points scientifically, with references and explanations from first principles when required. hovind won't enter this sort of debate because his usuall tactics of charismatic rapid-fire will not work in that situation.

In fact, looking at his dissertation review (see my sig for details on how to find it), it is unlikely he would even be able to string together a coherent scientific argument for anything.

 

[El Brujo]

It is interesting how you guys bash Hovind. Oh, yes, I have been been observing these boards for a long time, I know your jabs and kicks at Hovind. Hovind is actually a great guy. He is extremely intelligent and perceptive. He knows his stuff. What I find amusing is how you, as well as others, insult his integrity and all that. You insult his methods, the information he puts forth and all that.

You, as well as others, consider him a push over and his 'pseudo-science could never hold up against real science'. Crazy thing is, none of you lip-service extraordinaires (as well as plenty of others) debate him. Why not? You 'got the goods', why not challenge him? He is more than willing to do a debate. Make it an event! Publicly humiliate him if you think you got him done for.

Actually, when it comes to staged events that are not a level playing field, Kent Hovind is quite the fearless debater. But when it comes to honest, open debate, Hovind wants no part of it.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Do you debate with the crazy guy on the street corner who thinks he's Jesus? No? Then why should scientists debate Kent Hovind? Hovind's no more a scientist than the crazy guy is the incarnation of God.

The street crazies were out in force today at my university.

 

[Illuminatus]

The street crazies were out in force today at my university.

I ran across a couple when I was walking home on Monday night. The thing is, here in Waterloo, the street crazies have offices.

 

[random_guy]

Part 2
LOL! Yeah, I can do that too: I never heard the word singularity used in such an improper fashion! Last time I checked singularities were strangeness by virtue of being remarkable or unusual.(ends sarcasm)

But yeah, isn't that Hawking who came up with that? I may be wrong. But anyway, you bashed the definition without telling me WHY it was wrong. All that you gave was another view of the Big Bang theory. Both are taught. Check a textbook. This is JUST like another debate I did awhile back. Except they told me that the singularity idea was 'not what we teach!'. Yeah, funny stuff.

I have a question, is the 'spinning dot of intense energy and matter' the singularity you speak of? I am just wondering.

Singularity: a point in space. It wasn't just Hawkings that came up with that, it's from the observation that everything is moving away from each other, and if we rewind time, then everything will end up back at one point. There are problems with this idea, physics breaks down at the singularity. This just means we probably won't be able to find out what happened before the Big Bang because it just doesn't make any sense to ask that question. Someone more knowledgable than me can explain it better.

You're right that not every theory includes the singularity. However, I would like to see you back up your fact that physics books teach that everything came from nothingness. Show me a physic book that says the Big Bang came from nothing.

 

[Split Rock]

Whoops. Sorry, again. You guys replied really fast and I have to reply to everyone of you guys or you may get all riled up or something that I missed you.

I think it would make answering posts easier as well, if you were to stick to one or two points .. just my two cents worth.

True, I could not find a clear straight up definition of Kind by any creationist. I looked. So I had to make do with looking things up and looking in the dictionary and my encyclopedia than those steps all over gain various times. But like I said, the definition of Species is less satisfactory. You cannot tell me you could look at two different species of rabbits (without knowing that they are different species) and TELL ME that they are different species by using your definition of species. BUT you could do so with the definition of Kind.

So, all rabbits are a Kind? What other animals are in the Rabbit kind? What animals are not? How can we tell? If Kinds were created separately and individually by God, should it not be relatively easy to tell Kinds apart? Afterall, each Kind only underwent adaptive radiation over what? .. 4,000 years? Why can't creationists agree on how many Kinds there are? Let's look at a Hovind example of a Kind... The Cat Kind. How many animals are in the Cat Kind? Lions and Tigers, right? Well how about Hyenas? Hmm... not so sure now. Why not call The Carnivora a "Kind?" This would include cats and dogs and seals and ferrets, but they all have many features in common. How about Mammals? How about Vertebrates? Where do we draw the line. You mentioned The Family, as being the Kind level. Why family? Why not Class, or Genus?

You mentioned that the species definition is imperfect. This is very true, even for sexually reproducing animals. But what does evolution say about populations (and species)? That they are always in a state of flux. Ring Species are an excellent example of this. Unlike Kinds, which are fixed, species are not.

Let's go back to the idea that Kinds are about equal to the Family level. By what mechanism did these Kinds diversify so drastically over such a short period of time (say 4,000 years since the Flood)? Mutation and Natural Selection won't do it, because that would take too long for a "Cat" to deversify into cheetahs, lions, tigers, hyenas(?), cougars, bobcats, etc. Why is it that paintings and animal mummies found in Egyptian pyramids demonstrate that the animals that lived in Egypt thousands of years ago are not much different then the ones there now? Shouldn't we see less diversification? Maybe the ancesteral "Cat?" Just how fast was this lightning-brand of evolution?

 

[MartinM]

I was going to restrict myself to the physics, but I can't resist this:

Genetic information is NEVER added to the DNA...Evolution relys on the gaining of genetic information from who knows where.

Needless to say, one can't make such claims without a rigourous definition of information. So I assume you have one, else you wouldn't attempt to fob us off with this. May we have it?

For example.

When using those words, it's generally considered customary to actually provide something relevant to your previous statements. The excerpt you posted says nothing whatsoever about genetic information, nor whether or not mutations can increase it, nor whether evolution requires a way to increase it.




Right, on to the physics.

I have a question, is the 'spinning dot of intense energy and matter' the singularity you speak of? I am just wondering.

There is no 'spinning dot of intense energy and matter' anywhere in the Big Bang. That is a fantasy of Hovind's creation.

Well, congrats on getting a good education! That is some impressive stuff. But alas, the definition twas not mineth to claim. It is from AiG, but is exactly accurate to what MANY textbooks have to say about the Big Bang.

Then no doubt you can quote a textbook saying the equivalent of "When nothing gets together. The emptiness is supposed to have gathered together in one place, and gotten so thick that the "nothing" exploded-and blew itself into hydrogen gas"

Once you've done that, we can move on to the next part of your definition.

For example, the late Sir Arthur Eddington had already given an accurate explanation for this temperature found in space (in his book The Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926))
He explains that the radiation is not from a big bang, but actually from all the heat sources in the Universe. He calculated the minimum temperature of which any body in space would cool to, using the fact that these bodies are always exposed to distant starlight. He got a value of 3.18 K, later refined to 2.8.

Temperature is a single number. The spectrum of the CMB - the relationship between intensity and wavelength - is much more interesting. Eddington's prediction of the spectrum due to 'heat sources in the Universe' is very wrong, where the spectrum predicted by the BB fits spectacularly.

 

[Matthew777]

A discussion that uses ICR and AiG is not a debate but a funny farm.

Peace.

 

[MartinM]

Well the Biblical Creationist model relies on the 6000 year premise. It uses it as a basis. Much like the Big Bang makes assumptions in order to make their theory seem plausible. But Biblical Creationism supports the Biblical view. So it obviously assumes that 6000 years is correct. That is the point. It isn't that much different from any other theory. The 6000 year old premise is falsifiable. But it is far from falsified.

I don't think you're quite getting the point here. AiG say that no matter what evidence comes to light, the Earth is young, there was a global flood, and 'macroevolution' did not happen. There is no comparison in real science. Any competent scientist will be able to tell you what evidence they would require to reject the theories they currently accept.

No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.

Stability isn't required. 8Be is unstable, but as long as the reactions which produce it continue, some will be present to participate in nuclear reactions with 4He to produce 12C, which is stable.

No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity. The popular theory is that stars form from vast clouds of gas and dust through gravitational contraction. Because of heat pressuregas and dust clouds will expand, not contract.

Nonsense. A sufficiently dense cloud of gas will indeed contract. What you're claiming is that it doesn't matter what temperature and density the cloud is at, kinetic energy will always overcome gravitational potential, which is absurd.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

I just want to address a few points that haven’t been covered of yet and are fairly important, at least to me.

Arafax

One thing I have noticed is that when I keep putting forth the evidences and stuff, the evolutionists tend to get REAL mad. Seriously, I don't really know why. I hope that you guys stay cool headed and reasonable. I debate to have fun and to learn. So I hope you see where I am coming from. So be in good spirits and I hope to have an interesting debate. I will try to be as respectful as possible. I don't wanna hurt anyone's feelings or anything. Like I said, keep a cool head. People I debate tend to get mad quick. Don't worry, I don't get mad, I get......I.....hmmm.......yeah, I got nuttin'.

I think that the same could be said for creationists, but I think the rational for the perturbed attitudes differ. In the case of creationsists, evolution has confronted their beliefs and they feel attacked. The origin of anger from evolutionists, and specifically scientists (myself included) stems from the attacks on the scientific establishment by creationists. Nearly all of these rebuttals to scientific theory do not confront the science put forth; rather, mudslinging techniques, similar to politics, are used to discredit science. This type of attack is what angers scientists. Much of the press from the creationist community has made scientists look like fools and idiots. This is why I get heated.

Arafax

A male African lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris) can mate to produce a liger. The reverse cross produces a tigon. Wolves and dogs are considered different species, but they can interbreed. Or how about this?

In 1985, Hawaii’s Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins and killer whales).

The crossing of lions and tigers means nothing. Same with horses and donkeys. They can interbreed but they cannot produce vaible (meaning fertile) offspring. They are evolutionarily closely related, but not the same species. The definition of species should include the fact that the animals produced in mating have to be fertile. All the text books I’ve ever looked at made points of this, your source is incorrect.

And to address the Hawaii incident. Well this seems like it just blows me out of the water in terms of my last statement. Two different species produced a viable offspring. Yes this would be quite the blow. Too bad it isn’t real. I called a friend in the molecular biology program at the University of Hawaii Manoa to see if there was any such pairing. Why are these hybrids only on the web and not being studied? Because it is an urban legend.
I hope this clears some things up. Arafax, this discussion might be helped if we put numbers or heading to the issues you would like to resolve. Right now it seems like a jumble of things. It would also allow me to jump to the sections I’m proficeint in. I know my evolution and biology, but not physics and geology.

Chris