This post, combined with your immediately previous one, perfectly illustrates the circular logic and failure to adhere to the principle of falsifiability that is central to scientific reasoning, and which is at the core of the creationist/intelligent design approach to these questions.
Do you know how to tell when a science teacher is lying? He starts his sentence with millions and millions of years ago.
An evolutionist and God decide to have a competition to create man from dirt. As they walk along the beach God reaches down and graps a hand full of sand and goes to work. The evolutionist reaches down and God stops him and says wait now, you need to get your own dirt. :razz:
No, I don't think they are. As I have stated many times in this thread, but I know how you guys work you keep forgetting when people say things.
More Clues That the Earth is Young
Author(s): Bruce Malone
Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million years ago and became fully human approximately 100,000 years ago. Yet archeological records show civilization arising only about 5,000 years ago (based on evolutionary thinking). In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind 95,000 years after becoming fully human to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground!
Another indication of both a young earth and a confirmation of the worldwide flood is the scarcity of meteors in sedimentary rock layers. Although some meteors have been found in sedimentary layers, they are relatively rare. Meteors are easily identifiable, and many thousands have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on the planetxxx8217;s surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down rapidly during the one year period of a worldwide flood, you would not expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However, if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth.
Suppose you walked into an empty room and found a smoking cigar. You could assume that the cigar was very old and that it had only recently burst into flames, but the more logical conclusion would be that someone had recently been there to light it. The universe is full of similar "smoking cigars":
All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which Should Have long ago disappeared.
All known comets burn up their material with each pass around the sun and Should Have a maximum life expectancy of 100,000 years.
The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off.
The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago un-spiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long ago dispersed.
Scientists working from the preconception that the universe is 10-20 billion years old have suggested controversial and complicated possibilities for how these types of transient phenomena could still exist but their explanations are based more on faith, not science. The simpler explanation is that these "smoking cigars" are smoking because they are young.
What about dating methods which do seem to indicate that things are very old ? As seen in the first article on dating methods, assumptions are everything. For instance, carbon-14 generation rate has never significantly changed. This method does not date the age of the earth but understanding it can have a profound effect on our interpretation of the "ice age" and the "stone age". A recent worldwide catastrophe would have caused an enormous change in the total amount of carbon on earth's biosphere. This event would completely invalidate one of the basic assumptions of the carbon-14 dating method (a known carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio throughout the measurement period) and lead to excessively old dates for organisms alive shortly after this flood. This problem with carbon-14 dating assumptions will be described in detail in another article.
A Creationist's Challenge To Evolutionists
Author(s): Robert Congelliere
In Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that "evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science" and "we can call evolution a 'fact'". This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. I would like to remind evolutionists that, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.
One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.
(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?
Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind"(no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.
(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?
I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:
(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?
(4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term ";primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?
(6) How did life develop from non-life?
(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?
(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?
(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?
(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?
(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?
Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.
(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?
For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.
Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up".?
(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)
(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again is there some sort of a plan here?
To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer. Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.
(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?
Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )
(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn't the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?
(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?
Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.
(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?
If you believe in evolution:
(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?
(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?
Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.
Students: Make a copy of this CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS and ask your teacher or professor to give you answers to these questions. If they cannot, you have a right to be skeptical that what they are teaching you about evolution is true. Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a"fact".
Robert H. Congelliere
Luke 6:37 (New International Version)
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Dawg, can you just post links - the long posts are a PIA to sort through all the time. Some of the questions are pretty easy to pick apart and answer.
and I don't forget what you had said in the past, I'm just shocked enough to ask a similar question to see if I understood you the first time. So to you all Catholics are going to hell along with all people who do not fully accept the creationist theory.
To me, evidence wise evolution is at 90% and creationism is at about 2%. There are gaps in the evolutionary theory but nothing like the gaps in the evidence of creationism. It still boils down to your faith in Religion or faith in what you see. There are just certain things not discussed in the Bible that make it hard to think that the Bible can be taken as the history of the physical world.
Then answer the 20 question genius, dont just spout BS, answer the questions.
New International hahahaha
next youll wanna quote me the gay bible
Umm NIV or KJV the meaning is the same. I have also read the greek version as well, guess what it still means the same thing.
I guess it doesn't matter to you though, everything is in black & white as you have stated.
also, I did not see you answering back on any of the previous articles regarding evolution. probably for the same reason I do not care to answer this guys questions that you plastered over half the page.
So I guess God just made the Earth to look old and put those fossils down there to throw us off. Maybe he saw better ways for things to live so he gradually changed them over time....that neanderthal man just needed a few changes in God's eyes. He also put flood stories into all the world's major religions and turned the Garden of Eden into the Oil capital(Islam) of the world just for the irony of it. - rant done. Free Will allows choice, choice in everything including the way you believe. at least in my mind.
and to compare the NIV version of the Bible to some gay bible is pretty bad even for you.
And for your information the people who print the gay bible are the same ones who print the NIV there are over 125 differences the NIV and the KJV. Now we are getting to my studies and I can guarantee that the NIV is not the same as the KJV. It also adds things that were never written in the Bible for instance try and find Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11. Mark 7:16, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Romans 16:24 in the KJV its doesnt exist.
I know nothing of a gay Bible but the NIV is published by Zondervan and I worked for one of their competitors for a number of years. Fanatics will attack anything I guess but the NIV opened up the Bible to millions of new people in the last 30-40 years. I personally think that its message is the same as the KJV.
But the holes in creationist theory exist in both versions.(y)
Dawg, look up the phrase 'False Dichotomy'. It's a well known tactic of creationists. In the case of the diatribe above, one can apply this question to EVERY ONE of the questions posed. EVERY ONE of the questions have been discussed to the nth degree across many diciplines, especially biology. There are answers to all of them, but you choose not to even try to understand.
But just for the hell of it, I'll take this one.
(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?
Because it can't be tested scientifically. It's why it's called science. But believe me, if it could be tested and proved, it would be Nobel time for that scientist. So it's not for lack of interest.
I don't know alot about science or religion. I was taught when I was young that God created man and women in his own image. I believe this, but I look around the world and see that virtually no other person on this earth looks like me. (believe me that is a good thing! LOL!) I see whites, blacks, asians, muslims etc. I wonder who God make Adam and Eve to look like, and if there is no evolution how did the rest of us get here?
In a false dichotomy (also called a false dilemma, either or, black or white, the missing middle) you are presented with two choices, when in fact there are more than two choices. If one choice is discredited, then the reader is forced to accept the other choice. But this is not an adequate argument, the choice favored must be supported by evidence.
"If today is not Tuesday, it must be Wednesday."
"I don't believe in evolution, so 'creation science' must be right."
"Its owls versus jobs, the environment or the economy." Not really, of course. Most of the jobs lost in the logging industry were from automation and exporting unprocessed logs, not from protecting endangered species. And several studies have shown that healthy environments and economies go hand in hand.
The dichotomy can also be in the form of a question, which not only restricts choices but also forces a decision. For example, a salesman will ask "Do you want the red car or the blue one."
Seriously, the KJV? King James was a biased, lying sack of crap who would behead anyone who disagreed with him, of course his translators were faithful to the original and did a good job! I've translated a lot of the bible, Old and New Testament, the KJV just doesn't hold up at all. NRSV is the most accurate English translation currently available, but any translation is inferior to its original, just read that. It's pretty much impossible to accurately interpret a text outside of its cultural and linguistic context, anyway.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.