Well, I think that makes a grand total of 8 of us!!
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.
Freedom777 said:I'm a YEC Its what the bible teaches,so its what i believe
None of those things support creationism, hence the reason it was falsified over 100 years ago.Cedric Noggins said: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)
What are you talking about? The universe isn't alive, therefore could not be under "evolutionary circumstances" anyway.Cedric Noggins said: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.Cedric Noggins said: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
I admit I have no idea what a quarternion is so I cannot answer this.Cedric Noggins said:Quarternions- The universe is one big quarternion. Such a system would not occur under evolutionary circumstances.
Don't know what your point is here either.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 prevents what exactly?Quantum Physics- I'll get back to this one when I have time to write the thesis!
Evolution has created many examples of order and complexity (you being one of them).Microbiology- Order, complexity
Geology does nothing but support an old earth and destroy the idea of a world wide flood.Geology- Do not ever argue this one with me!
Radiometric dating is very accurate when used properly.Radiometric dating
You're going to have to explain this one further; I know of no discrepancies.pre-cambr discrepencies
"There is no discrepancy between the faith and science.... true science!"and lack of true science
Progressions- hehe... Fibonacci is quite simple and can occur with evolution, but other natural progressions cannot! 4,3,1,4,3,1....
Andrew said: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.
Cedric Noggins said: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.
troodon said: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 still fail to see what that has to do with evolution.Pope Gonzo said: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.
Protons and neutrons repelling each other? That's new to me. What exactly is a neutral charge?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.
Big talkEvolution is nice as a theory, but when you seriously start thinking about some key issues, it drops like a rock.
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.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).
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.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.
I just does work. It worked 3 separate times in fact.Another stab against evolution is the evolution of sea mammals. It just doesn't work.
] Did you even visit my link. A link that no YEC has even tried to explain yet?And I'm not sure how geology destroys the idea of a worldwide flood.
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.How else would you explain fossil graveyards
How is this a problem for biological evolution?massive deposits of fossil fuels
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?and the total extinction of a massive species(dinosaurs)?
How is this a problem for biological evolution?Also, the geological column is a nice idea, except for the fact that it's extremely rarely found in its entirety
Examples please.and it's often found out of order or even completely inverted.
Hey, it's your problem if you want to just ignore a bunch of evidence pointing to an old earthI'm not even gonna try to touch the mess of dating methods(pun intended ).
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 really haven't heard a good argument for evolution that can fit the Cambrian Explosion. Nothing... then everything.
Mostly good, all fun.But it's all good and fun.
Good adviceRock on, all.
Pope Gonzo said: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.
Cedric Noggins said:Quantum Physics- I'll get back to this one when I have time to write the thesis!