|
Post by UnsavedSwed on Apr 12, 2005 23:12:10 GMT -5
, all scientific evidence does point toward creation and an age of approximately 6,000 years. I'm interested in seeing that data since carbon dating has found fossils to be millions of years old. not just six thousand.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 12, 2005 23:20:08 GMT -5
I can see where that quote would look kind of dumb. What he is saying here, though is that Scripture for him is the ultimate authority of truth. He also says "if" all scientific evidence were against creationism, he would still believe in it. I agree - this is not a smart statement. What are you talking about? There's a lot of data that disagrees with that.
|
|
|
Post by justn7 on Apr 13, 2005 0:12:08 GMT -5
In answer to the reply before this, carbon dating has consistently proven to be completely unreliable.
The data that I have agrees very well with Creation. Scientific laws such as The Law of Entropy which says that everything tends toward disorder rather than order stands in opposition to evolution - nothing improves over time. Also, the Law of Biogenesis says that life cannot come from non-life. Evolution says that life came from a pool of chemicals. There are many more, but one of the best supports for creation is that we have never seen an organism reproduce outside of its kind (ex. we have never seen and will never see a dog produce a non-dog). I believe in microevolution which has been observed - variations within the kind, but there is absolutely no evidence supporting macroevolution.
|
|
Wiggles
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 1
|
Post by Wiggles on Apr 13, 2005 4:49:40 GMT -5
I love it when the religious try and argue things scienfically - with one hand they damn science, and with the other they try and use it in a comically selective manner to justify their bizarre beliefs.
The poster earlier in the thread was at least more honest about it - there is no proof for religion - there doens't need to be. If you believe it, fine - you could all be right. The human brain is fallible - who's to say we (the non religious) are just incapable of seeing how obviously right you are?
To the non-religious, though, what we see with science is a series of logical steps - theories which are often said to be proven but which never really are (as you can never be 100% certain that a better theory is going to come along and blow yours out of the water) - but at least they are mainly based on sound thinking. With religion, we have what seems to us like a crazy blanket acceptance of a book that's been around for a couple of thousand years, which if it were taken as a rough guide to how to live a good life would be great - but which is sadly used as a lynchpin for a pyramid of crazy beliefs. We have a desired destination ("To know the truth") and a journey we are taking to try and get close to it, whereas you have a starting point ("We know the truth"), and a series of battles to prove that your truth is correct.
|
|
|
Post by justn7 on Apr 13, 2005 9:04:34 GMT -5
I am not trying to condemn science at all. As I said before, science is the study of God's creation. Is there some bad science out there? Definitely. Nebraska man and Lucy are two such examples of it. However, you did not at all address the scientific laws that I presented. Evolution has a pretty tough time with these, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 13, 2005 13:18:08 GMT -5
In answer to the reply before this, carbon dating has consistently proven to be completely unreliable. Only if the sample taken is not a "good" sample, like one that has been contaminated and such. That dating method is not relied upon solely, there are cross-checks as well. Not to mention the scientific tool of repeatability that add to the checking of this. Carbon-14 dating is accurate up to about 40,000. Past that it becomes questionable. Sorry my friend, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states clearly it refers only to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system. No it doesn't. That's abiogenesis, not evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory only deals with living organisms and how they and their populations change over time. Of course you won't, you won't ever see that as described by evolutionary theory either. That view is completely incorrect. Oh contraire my friend, speciation has been inferred by not only fossil data, morphology but genetic lineage reconstruction and it has also been observed as well. Would you like come citations?
|
|
|
Post by justn7 on Apr 13, 2005 17:56:47 GMT -5
I will leave the Carbon dating alone except to say that if it is only reliable to 40,000 years, how can it show us that the universe is billions of years old.
As far as the Law of Entropy, in reference to the origins of the universe, the universe IS a closed system. The Big Bang says that all the matter in the universe was compacted, spun, exploded and became extremely ordered. Now, when you tell me that the Law of Entropy does not apply to the earth because it is a closed system, are you trying to say that adding energy overcomes this law?
The Law of Biogenesis says that life can only come from life. If you are going to subscribe to evolutionary theory, you still have to deal with the origins of the universe.
You'll need to explain to me how we could have evolved from a single cell without organisms reproducing outside of it's kind. It seems to me that we would then only have one species of living organism here on earth today.
Correct my understanding of speciation if I am wrong. I am saying that living organisms reproduce within their own kind, not species. Sure, like Darwin's finches one species of bird can reproduce with another species of bird. But, they will ALWAYS produce a BIRD. A bird cannot reproduce with a horse, and no two birds regardless of how different the species will produce a non-bird.
|
|
|
Post by justn7 on Apr 13, 2005 18:04:02 GMT -5
I'll throw another one in real quick. Are you familiar with the Conservation of Angular Momentum? The Big Bang says that all the matter in the universe was compacted into a small 'dot', spun at an incredible speed and eventually exploded. As particles break off in the explosion, they will all continue in orbit in the same direction as the original 'dot' was spinning.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 13, 2005 19:55:51 GMT -5
I will leave the Carbon dating alone except to say that if it is only reliable to 40,000 years, how can it show us that the universe is billions of years old. Carbon dating is used to date organic material, not the universe. The Earth is not a closed system. It receives energy from the sun. Hence, not a closed system. www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.htmlWhat does evolutionary theory have to do with the universe's origins? Negative shipmate. Evolutionary theory does not deal with the origins of life, that is a separate scientific theory called abiogenesis. www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.htmlThe first cells were not sexual reproducers, that evolved much later. Change over time lends to speciation and diversity. Where did you get the idea that they would? There's nothing in scientific literature that claims such. What is a "kind" anyway, could you provide a definition? The change we see in the fossil record and evidenced by genetic lineages is over a very long time. After a million years or so of change new species and even classes or phylum can arise. It is gradual NOT spontaneous. www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 13, 2005 19:56:53 GMT -5
I'll throw another one in real quick. Are you familiar with the Conservation of Angular Momentum? The Big Bang says that all the matter in the universe was compacted into a small 'dot', spun at an incredible speed and eventually exploded. As particles break off in the explosion, they will all continue in orbit in the same direction as the original 'dot' was spinning. We're discussing cosmology now? What does this have to do with evolutionary theory? www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html
|
|
|
Post by Enuffalready on Apr 14, 2005 4:23:01 GMT -5
I will leave the Carbon dating alone except to say that if it is only reliable to 40,000 years, how can it show us that the universe is billions of years old. Ok, thats fine but if all scientific evidence points to the universe being approx. 6,000 years old. How do you explain organic matter here on earth that is at least 40,000 years old. Carbon dating has at least that.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 14, 2005 8:16:08 GMT -5
I'm interested in seeing that data since carbon dating has found fossils to be millions of years old. not just six thousand. Id like to see your data, last I heard you cant carbon date a fossil.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 14, 2005 8:31:34 GMT -5
Ok, thats fine but if all scientific evidence points to the universe being approx. 6,000 years old. How do you explain organic matter here on earth that is at least 40,000 years old. Carbon dating has at least that. there is the possibility that something has caused fluctuations in the rate of decay. I wish they would carbon date that trex soft tissue they found. but ofcourse if it showed a date that didnt fit their preconcieved ideas they would through out the data. kind of like cognative disonence eh squid?
|
|
|
Post by justn7 on Apr 14, 2005 11:59:41 GMT -5
Solidsquid, you're telling me that adding energy to something improves it. That can happen only with chlorophyll. When the sun adds energy to the roof of your house or your car, it slowly destroys it. When we added energy to Hiroshima in WWII, we didn't create order at all. Adding energy creates disorder.
The other problem I have is that you think that you can just keep adding more time and it solves everything. By adding that much time, there are other things you have to deal with though.
Ex. The moon is slowly (about 1 inch a year) getting farther away from the earth. If the earth is billions of years old, while mankind was evolving the moon was orbiting just above the surface of the earth.
Ex. The earth is rotating slower and slower. We have leap second every two years because of this. Again, if the earth is as old as it has to be for evolution to work, it was spinning so fast millions of years ago that the centrifugal force would have overcome gravity.
At the rate the population is increasing, if the earth is billions of years old, there would be about 50,000 people per square foot on the earth today. Instead, we can fit the entire population of the earth into Jacksonville, FL- twice. Actually, with the current population, the rate of increase points to an origin about 4,000 years ago. That agrees pretty well with the idea that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago and that there was a flood about 4,000 years ago that covered the earth and wiped out all but eight people.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 14, 2005 14:53:11 GMT -5
Solidsquid, you're telling me that adding energy to something improves it. That can happen only with chlorophyll. When the sun adds energy to the roof of your house or your car, it slowly destroys it. When we added energy to Hiroshima in WWII, we didn't create order at all. Adding energy creates disorder. Nope. Like I said it does not violate the second law and the life on earth is entirely dependent upon the sun. Without it's energy the planet would suffer and all life would die. Why is that hard to understand? I'm not "just adding more time", it how things are. Evolution works slowly (gradually) over long periods of time due to the generation lengths of the organisms. Remember, populations evolve not individuals. Natural selection and the other selective mechanisms work on the individuals. I think I might have to post my evolution primers again. Sorry, incorrect. Also what does this have to do with evolutionary theory?: www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.htmlWrong again: www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html Nope: www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html
|
|