What's your stance?

[OldBadfish]

17th February 2003 at 01:19 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #8



The problem is I have yet to see a Creationist theory that does not ignore evidence.

Ehh, that's our right as Christians.

I'm open to proofs, when I see them, just haven't seen anything convincing enough to discount YE.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:23 AM Badfish™ said this in Post #20

I'm a YEC. Yep Yep, and a 6 day YEC too.

Well, I think that makes a grand total of 8 of us!!

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:26 AM Badfish™ said this in Post #21




Ehh, that's our right as Christians.

I'm open to proofs, when I see them, just haven't seen anything convincing enough to discount YE.

They havent convinced me yet either....

 

[seebs]

It's weird for me, because the idea of the earth being young was never suggested to me as a kid; my parents weren't scientists per se, but they certainly had the basic grounding in the scientific method to understand the results and data, and it seemed totally normal to me. For me, I would need to see some kind of evidence *supporting* a young earth, and I've never seen even a tiny scrap of it. Everything I see fits with old-earth expectations and conventional physics and geology.

 

[Freedom777]

I'm a YEC Its what the bible teaches,so its what i believe

 

[lucaspa]

I'm a YEC Its what the bible teaches,so its what i believe

Does the Bible REALLY teach Young Earth Creationism?

 

[Cedric Noggins]

YEC, its what the Bible says (it amazes me how many people miss-interperet/ignore/can't read the part where it says "six days") and its what Quantum physics, thermodynamics, geological sciences, micro-biology, philosophy, bio-chemistry, group theory, quarternions, mathematical progressions and logic all support.

(P.S. Don't read things like Dr.Dino etc, their science is wacked)

 

[wblastyn]

YEC, its what the Bible says (it amazes me how many people miss-interperet/ignore/can't read the part where it says "six days") and its what Quantum physics, thermodynamics, geological sciences, micro-biology, philosophy, bio-chemistry, group theory, quarternions, mathematical progressions and logic all support.

(P.S. Don't read things like Dr.Dino etc, their science is wacked)

None of those things support creationism, hence the reason it was falsified over 100 years ago.

 

[Cedric Noggins]

These most definitely do!

A quick run through of a few:
Quarternions- The universe is one big quarternion. Such a system would not occur under evolutionary circumstances.
Thermodynamics- Yes, everyone points out the obvious, the sun, but when one looks at the universe as a whole, it does not fit the nature of entropy.
Quantum Physics- I'll get back to this one when I have time to write the thesis!
Microbiology- Order, complexity
Geology- Do not ever argue this one with me! Radiometric dating, pre-cambr discrepencies, and lack of true science (geology is a collection of facts based upon a grounding of silly assumptions, or at least historical geology is).
Progressions- hehe... Fibonacci is quite simple and can occur with evolution, but other natural progressions cannot! 4,3,1,4,3,1....

Just a very quick run through

 

[wblastyn]

These most definitely do!

A quick run through of a few:
Quarternions- The universe is one big quarternion. Such a system would not occur under evolutionary circumstances.
Thermodynamics- Yes, everyone points out the obvious, the sun, but when one looks at the universe as a whole, it does not fit the nature of entropy.
Quantum Physics- I'll get back to this one when I have time to write the thesis!
Microbiology- Order, complexity
Geology- Do not ever argue this one with me! Radiometric dating, pre-cambr discrepencies, and lack of true science (geology is a collection of facts based upon a grounding of silly assumptions, or at least historical geology is).
Progressions- hehe... Fibonacci is quite simple and can occur with evolution, but other natural progressions cannot! 4,3,1,4,3,1....

Just a very quick run through

What are you talking about? The universe isn't alive, therefore could not be under "evolutionary circumstances" anyway.

What does thermodynamics have to do whether God zapped the universe into existance or used the big bang?

Why does evolution prevent order and complexity?

 

[sfs]

These most definitely do!

A quick run through of a few:
Quarternions- The universe is one big quarternion. Such a system would not occur under evolutionary circumstances.
Thermodynamics- Yes, everyone points out the obvious, the sun, but when one looks at the universe as a whole, it does not fit the nature of entropy.
Quantum Physics- I'll get back to this one when I have time to write the thesis!
Microbiology- Order, complexity
Geology- Do not ever argue this one with me! Radiometric dating, pre-cambr discrepencies, and lack of true science (geology is a collection of facts based upon a grounding of silly assumptions, or at least historical geology is).
Progressions- hehe... Fibonacci is quite simple and can occur with evolution, but other natural progressions cannot! 4,3,1,4,3,1....

Just a very quick run through

How about you just pick your favorite and present a real case? What you've written here doesn't make a whole lot of sense. (How can the universe be a quaternion? A quaternon is a mathematical construct, while the universe is a bunch of stuff in a whole lot of space-time. Even if you want to describe some aspect of the universe by a quaternion for some reason, I'm at a loss trying to figure out what that would have to do with evolution.) Oh, and could you also provide some support for the statement that you made in an another thread, about theistic evolutionists being ignorant and looking for a way out? It's not polite to slander and run.

 

[troodon]

Quarternions- The universe is one big quarternion. Such a system would not occur under evolutionary circumstances.

I admit I have no idea what a quarternion is so I cannot answer this.

Thermodynamics- Yes, everyone points out the obvious, the sun, but when one looks at the universe as a whole, it does not fit the nature of entropy.

Don't know what your point is here either.

Quantum Physics- I'll get back to this one when I have time to write the thesis!

Quantum physics prevents what exactly?

Microbiology- Order, complexity

Evolution has created many examples of order and complexity (you being one of them).

Geology- Do not ever argue this one with me!

Geology does nothing but support an old earth and destroy the idea of a world wide flood.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=43339
Go ahead; explain it. No one has even tried so far.

Radiometric dating

Radiometric dating is very accurate when used properly.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

pre-cambr discrepencies

You're going to have to explain this one further; I know of no discrepancies.

and lack of true science

"There is no discrepancy between the faith and science.... true science!"
-Dr. Zaius responding to Tayler when faced with archaeological evidence proving that humans had a thriving society older than that of the apes.

Progressions- hehe... Fibonacci is quite simple and can occur with evolution, but other natural progressions cannot! 4,3,1,4,3,1....

Again, you'll have to explain why this cannot occur.

 

[Icystwolf]

If Jesus and Paul took the creation account literally, then so do I.



I dont think u understnd what Creation Science is about. Creationists DO NOT deny the existence of the evidence out there -- like bones, fossils, etc -- they just interpret them from the angle and perspectiveof the Bible.

I would have thought Evolution is part of creation. In a sense, when God said he moulded adam from dirt, and eventually became man. Well in God's perspective, where a millions can be one day, we all started out as some microbe and eventually formed into what we are today. That the formation of it, or God's moulding has part of evolution to it.

I personally don't think Jesus took the scriptures literally, he is God, and he has seen the birth of earth. So he knows very well how we were formed, and through God's view, it was moulded.

Remember, at the time of creation, no humans existed, and one day on earth could have been a week or a year, because the earth might not have fully formed. So when God saw it, one day it not our day, its his day.

It could easily be, where God called one day, one step of achievement...we don't know, but we'll find out when we get up there.

 

[Icystwolf]

These most definitely do!
Thermodynamics- Yes, everyone points out the obvious, the sun, but when one looks at the universe as a whole, it does not fit the nature of entropy.

Ever heard of black holes?

 

[Pope Gonzo]

I'm definitely YEC, for two main reasons. First, in the Creation Story, the Hebrew word for "day" can mean either a literal 24-hour day or it can mean a period of time or an age. However, in every single other use in the Old Testament, when used with a number(ie first day, second day, etc.), it means a literal 24-hour day. The second problem I have is that evolution just doesn't work. There is too much lack of support or evidence and there are too many holes in it, such as how life actually began.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

Don't know what your point is here either.

Quantum physics prevents what exactly?

Evolution has created many examples of order and complexity (you being one of them).

Geology does nothing but support an old earth and destroy the idea of a world wide flood.
http://www.christianforums.com/t43339
Go ahead; explain it. No one has even tried so far.

Radiometric dating is very accurate when used properly.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
You're going to have to explain this one further; I know of no discrepancies.

"There is no discrepancy between the faith and science.... true science!"
-Dr. Zaius responding to Tayler when faced with archaeological evidence proving that humans had a thriving society older than that of the apes.

Again, you'll have to explain why this cannot occur.

I also don't know what a quarternion is. But he's referencing the second law of thermodynamics(the entropy law), where it basically says that the total entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. We could butt heads on that for months and make no progress(personally, I think it's a weak argument anyway).

I assume by quantum physics he's referencing the nucleus of an atom. I'm sure you've heard this a thousand times before, but the nucleus of an atom is made solely of protons and neutrons. The positive and neutral charges would only repel themselves, normally, but they don't. The most current theory I've heard is binding energy. But the key word is theory - I doubt we'll ever really know how the atom is held together.

Evolution is nice as a theory, but when you seriously start thinking about some key issues, it drops like a rock. First, there's no way that life could have originated out of some pre-biotic soup, considering the odds against amino acids forming proteins and what-not(especially the formation of DNA). Also, with the idea that everything evolved from single-cell organisms is horrendous, because even the simplest single-cell organisms are more complex than our fastest supercomputers could recreate in perfect conditions, nonetheless random chance could produce in horrible conditions. Another stab against evolution is the evolution of sea mammals. It just doesn't work.

And I'm not sure how geology destroys the idea of a worldwide flood. How else would you explain fossil graveyards, massive deposits of fossil fuels, and the total extinction of a massive species(dinosaurs)? Also, the geological column is a nice idea, except for the fact that it's extremely rarely found in its entirety, and it's often found out of order or even completely inverted.

I'm not even gonna try to touch the mess of dating methods(pun intended ).

I really haven't heard a good argument for evolution that can fit the Cambrian Explosion. Nothing... then everything.


But it's all good and fun. Rock on, all.

 

[troodon]

But he's referencing the second law of thermodynamics(the entropy law), where it basically says that the total entropy of the universe is constantly increasing.

I still fail to see what that has to do with evolution.

I assume by quantum physics he's referencing the nucleus of an atom. I'm sure you've heard this a thousand times before, but the nucleus of an atom is made solely of protons and neutrons. The positive and neutral charges would only repel themselves, normally, but they don't.

Protons and neutrons repelling each other? That's new to me. What exactly is a neutral charge?

Evolution is nice as a theory, but when you seriously start thinking about some key issues, it drops like a rock.

Big talk

First, there's no way that life could have originated out of some pre-biotic soup, considering the odds against amino acids forming proteins and what-not(especially the formation of DNA).

That's abiogenesis (not biological evolution) and frankly is something I am indifferent to. Whether the first life arose abiotically or whether God actually created it, I care not. In the end you're still faced with the fact that all the evidence points to all life sharing a common ancestor. Even if abiogenesis were falsified, it would have nothing to do with biological evolution or an old earth.

Also, with the idea that everything evolved from single-cell organisms is horrendous, because even the simplest single-cell organisms are more complex than our fastest supercomputers could recreate in perfect conditions, nonetheless random chance could produce in horrible conditions.

This is not an argument against common ancestry this is an argument against abiogenesis. No matter how impossible it may be (in your mind) to have life be created without God's intervention it has nothing to do with the mechanics of that first life reproducing, diversifying, and creating the life we see all around us.

Another stab against evolution is the evolution of sea mammals. It just doesn't work.

I just does work. It worked 3 separate times in fact.

And I'm not sure how geology destroys the idea of a worldwide flood.

] Did you even visit my link. A link that no YEC has even tried to explain yet?

How else would you explain fossil graveyards

You mean like Ghost Ranch? A flash flood. You mean like La Brea tar pits? A predator trap. You mean the the Iguanodon quarry in Brussells? A ravine. Large concentrations of fossils are uncommon and entirely explainable. There are few sites where evidence points to a flood being the cause of all the fossils but when there is enough evidence for it paleontologists are happy to admit that a flood was the culprit.

massive deposits of fossil fuels

How is this a problem for biological evolution?

and the total extinction of a massive species(dinosaurs)?

I wonder how YECs explain it. I mean, with all the massive extinctions that we know of (Precambrian, Cambrian, Permian [huge], two Triassics, and the Tertiary), how do you explain the fact that they are all completely separate? Why is there one where we see lots of dead therapsids, one where we see lots of dead thecodonts, 2 where we see lots of dead dinosaurs, etc.? Why not one, big, jumbled extinction instead of many gradual extinctions puctuated by large die offs?

Also, the geological column is a nice idea, except for the fact that it's extremely rarely found in its entirety

How is this a problem for biological evolution?

and it's often found out of order or even completely inverted.

Examples please.

I'm not even gonna try to touch the mess of dating methods(pun intended ).

Hey, it's your problem if you want to just ignore a bunch of evidence pointing to an old earth

I really haven't heard a good argument for evolution that can fit the Cambrian Explosion. Nothing... then everything.

There are several reasons for it. Firstly, there was something before the Cambrian. We have several fossil sites across the world which have representatives of the Precambrian. Secondly, the Cambrian was the first time that hard body parts appeared. Fossilization definatly favors hard body parts so it will give the illusion of lots of animals appearing from no where when in fact they simply had no hard parts prior to the Cambrian. Thirdly, Precambrian (and early Cambrian) strata is simply rare. We have the same problem with the Middle Triassic and Middle Jurassic. The fossil sites we get is largely dependant upon luck and we simply aren't lucky (yet) with sites dated to these eras.

I know ask you, how do you explain the "Cambrian explosion" when you don't even think there was a Cambrian?

But it's all good and fun.

Mostly good, all fun.

Rock on, all.

Good advice

 

[Jet Black]

I assume by quantum physics he's referencing the nucleus of an atom. I'm sure you've heard this a thousand times before, but the nucleus of an atom is made solely of protons and neutrons. The positive and neutral charges would only repel themselves, normally, but they don't. The most current theory I've heard is binding energy. But the key word is theory - I doubt we'll ever really know how the atom is held together.

Actually atomic structure is extremely well understood, right down to the level where we can predict the stability of different isotopes using the semi empirical mass formula (there is a neat perturbation you can add - if you add gravity in, then you imagine that a hypothetical "atom" has no protons, then the smallest stable object you get is about the size of a neutron star).

It is true that if the electromagnetic force was the only one, everything would fly apart, but for protons and neutrons, another force is important - the strong force. This force is extremely strong, but acts only over very short distances (comparable to the size of a nucleus) and it is this that holds the nucleus together. There are a couple of other forces... the weak force, responsible for nuclear decay, and the colour force, responsible for holding quarks together, but these aren't important for the purpose of this discussion.

Atomic theory is an extension of quantum theory, and doesn't even need the more fancy relativistic Quantum theory to explain it. It is very well understood indeed. If you want to ask me more, fire away.

Another point worth noting, is that scientifically, "Theory" means that the idea is pretty much accepted as fact, and has been well verified and so far unfalsified. Try not to confuse this with "Hypothesis" which is more af an idea that possibly hasn't been tested rigorously yet.

 

[Jet Black]

Quantum Physics- I'll get back to this one when I have time to write the thesis!

I'd really appreciate it if you could PM this one to me in case I forget. I will be sure to give it a thorough analysis.

 

[Amorphous]

Agnostic evolutionist.