young earth Creationism .. again

[demonfork]

Have to give it to Lionz. He has been respectful and made his points whereas PLAYER has been condescending and arrogant. Unfortunately, God Himself most likely couldn't prove creationism to her.

I agree 100%. I don't think that anyone could tell her anything...she is a legend in her own mind.

[Lionz]

CB,

There are Darwinists and non-Darwinists who have spoken past eachother maybe. What if the Father created various kinds of animals and they have brought forth variety after their kinds and yet universal common descent is not true?

Also, what suggests to you that earth is billions of years old? If you saw a naked man standing somewhere with pubic hair you would assume he was over ten years old maybe, but what if Adam was created as a full grown man with pubic hair?

[comic boy]

Have to give it to Lionz. He has been respectful and made his points whereas PLAYER has been condescending and arrogant. Unfortunately, God Himself most likely couldn't prove creationism to her.

Player can ramble in an unsufferable way but feels strongly about the dangers of Young Earth Creationism , Lionz is a thrice busted multi who Trolls the forums and is no doubt highly amused when somebody takes his bait. Jay thinks he is a Christian but is happy to ride the tail of the Devil to take a cheap shot at somebody who has often made him look foolish....you decide

[Lionz]

?

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER,

How about a number system?

1 ) You might not have said something is proven when it's shown to be 100% irrefutable, but how about define irrefutable if you hold that's the case?

Not a lot is considered 100% irrefutable in science. Even many observations, data that is known to be true is always couched in "known to be true given xyz.. and probably abcdefg as well..conditions".

However, the standards of science are you get an idea. Maybe straightforward, maybe wild. Then you form a hypothesis (more often a series of hypothesis) and design a test of that hypothesis. In the case of "I believe the ivory billed woodpecker is not truly extinct" what's needed is particular kinds of observations (by multiple people who are trained in ivory bill ID) and/or some kind of definite recording. In this case, I believe audio recordings were distinct enough, but I am not sure if even that was considered 100% confirmation.

In the case of many behavior issues, a big problem is in designing the test. For example, if I try to test my toddler son's ability to see a chart and there is a cookie on the table next to us, he might be so intent upon the cookies he will ignore the chart, thus nullifying any test. (OK, a very simplistic,even "stupid" example, but simple is clear).

2 ) Would someone intentionally or unintentionally putting forward a fraud as something real mean they were trying to prove something regardless of whether or not I did that? I can't even prove that I was born in 1983 maybe.

You want opinion? Come one! You keep avoiding the point.

The fact is that some people do lie, do commit fraud. Claiming otherwise is silly. You might claim that creationists are not lying or at least not lying intentionally. You could have an argument there. However, it is fact that much of what has been put forward as "proof" by young earth creationists throughout history has been found to be fraudulant. Not all putting this information forward knew of the fraud. However, what I am discussing is truth versus fiction. What you have presented in that other thread as "proof" is actually fiction. You avoid answering, you simply deflect questions like the one above.

3 ) Is one of these the result of human carving and one of these not?

I am not even looking at those pictures for at least 2 reasons. First, pictures are too easily doctored nowadays to be credible without verificaiton. Second, I am not in any way an expert on human artifacts. I don't say MY expertise claims the site is natural, I cite experts who are recognized by those who are knowledgeable in the field. A big problem there is that Creationists definition of "experts" seems to be just someone who is willing to believe Creationism and then secondarily add in whatever scientific knowledge they can make fit the circumstances. That is just not how science works.

4 ) Orthodox history does hold that stone tools were employed well over 5,000 years ago and I asked a misleading question maybe. What would stone tools help explain in regards to the Yonaguni Monument if it's an unnatural structure though?

Huh.. this question is not even really a question. You want me to make guesses about what something that did not happen, is not true might possibly indicate?

Rather seems like what is supposed to be one of those traps kids are taught to ask to trip people up. It not a real question with a real answer.

Try again....

5 ) You mean if it were discovered that the Yonaguni Monument was human-built, then it would provide evidence for another civilization that had no connection to the later residents? If so, you mean no connection in a no connection between preflood civilization and postflood civilization type sense? : )

Whoa. BACK UP!
I said that IF it were human built, it could possibly be from another civilization. I made absolutely no reference to the flood.. at all. In fact, since you seemed to imply you thought the world was only 6,000 years old, my basic comment was "why are you bringing up this example that is claimed to be 8000 years old?"

Civilizations come and go. If you went back even 400 years in US history, you would find a completely different people, (Seneca primarily) occupying the land where I sit now, completely unrelated to the townspeople here. Go back 3000 years and I don't know if the people then were even directly related to the Seneca.

BUT, all of that is irrelevant, because the truth is that there is no evidence that this was anything but a natural formation that just happens to look "strange". As a side note, while i have no experience with this site or much archeology, I DO have a good deal of experience up in the Sierras and other western ranges and both granite and shale formations often look very, very angular. The fact that this formation has a "stair step" appearance might lend some amateurs to believe it "has to be" man-made, but in truth there would need to be a LOT more evidence. Most specifically, what archeologist often seek are evidence of tool marks and/or evidence that a particular rock was moved from one location to another in a way that would not happen naturally. Neither of these things are present at this site. Instead, as the link I posted explained, everything there is very readily explained through fully natural processes.

It is almost always impossible to prove a null hypothesis. That is, one cannot, in a case like this absolutely prove that no humans were involved. However, when a scientist says that he sees no evidence of human intervention, that all the processes are fully explained by natural phenomena, it is as close as one can get to a definitive "this is not human made". If someone wants to use this to shake up archeology, they will have to do better that what has been presented so far!

6 ) If someone asks you in a court of law what evidence you have for something having occured and you reply by saying a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot of evidence then where is that going to get you? Can you get specific? What specifically suggests to you that ants and whales share common ancestry?

Specific about whales and ants? Again, this is the kind of so-called "question" that drives real scientists batty when dealing with young earth creationists. And I don't think its at all cooincidental that you picked up 2 species that each have a somewhat "difficult" (not particularly straightforward) lineage.

The answer is almost all of the fossil record. Since neither whales, nor ants, nor even paleontology are my area of expertise, no I cannot pull out the specific fossils from my hat. I can tell you that the process of even realizing that fossils represented real animals took a while. Aristotle is credited with first noticing that fossil shells matched those living along the shore (to some extent) and deducing that fossils came from living creatures.

Linneas began the classification system we have now. The basic groups are Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Genus, Species. Those in one Kingdom come from one descendent line, those in other kingdoms from others. Their "joining" is very, very, very far back. Ants are in one Kingdom and Whales in another, so they are only barely related. So much as been learned of biology and paleontology in the past 2 decades, though that even a lot of the classifications I learned are now known to be incorrect. (again NOT the entire theory of evolution, but how various animals descended and are related to one another). Years ago there was debate over how to even look at the record. Cladistics was one way(1966 is the date wikki gives for publication). It took the superficial characteristics of creatures and then assigned them levels of hierarchy. A fox is a lot like a wolf and a cayote, so they would be considered more closely related than, say an elephant or an ant. It helped to a point, and is sometimes still used (with extreme caution) in species with limited fossil records, but genetics (genoptype) and looks (phenotype) do not always corrospond. Whales are a good example. Superficially (to a non-scientist, at least), whales look more like fish than a dog. In truth, though, their biology and the fossil record show they share a far closer ancestry with dogs than fish. Both a dog and a whale (and yes, even humans) can trace their ancestry back to a small mammal that appeared around the time dinosaurs were prominant. Another example is the whole dinosaur=lizards deal. I won't get into that whole history, but even when I was in college, it was pretty well thought that dinosaurs were giant reptiles. (I believe the dispute had been ongoing in the field, but it had not trickled down to basic education yet) Now, of course, we know they were actually birds.

As for the ant and a whale, the line has to go all the way back to the beginnings of animal evolution.

How about list three things if there are three and then we move on from there?

see, here is why I mentioned cladistics. You want to look at purely superficial characteristics and then say that shows something about their phylogeny. That is not at all how paleontologists work. They don't ignore phenotype (looks), but that is just a "starting point". And, many times (whales are a great example) the surface can decieve. Instead, what scientists do is look at the fossil record. They start, first, with living species. Now, they can do genetic tests and that has advanced the science phenomenally. However, let's go back before genetic testing (to the relative "dark ages"). The scientists would look first at fossils that were very close or (ideally) identical to the species studied. Then they would go back and look for another species that showed the shared traights of various groups. At first, scientits might not even know what characteristics they sought (sure, they had ideas, but they needed proof). Over time, many, many, many fossils have been created. In some cases, mammals & fish particularly, we have a pretty good record of evolution. In other cases, we have almost nothing. There are definite gaps and questions.

However, the bottom line is that phylogeny is based on inheritance, NOT on superficial appearance.

If you want to read up on ant phylogeny, here is a recent article:
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/21/7411.full

Here is an easier-to read article on whale evolution:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... Evol.shtml

What if the Father created various kinds of animals and they have brought forth variety after their kinds and yet universal common descent is not true?

That is just not what the evidence shows.

He could have done it that way, absolutely, but it is not what the evidence shows. See, here is the other problem with creationist arguments. Evolution, now is very close to being a fact. Some parts of the theory actually are fact. As a whole, the evidence is so substantial that the likelihood of another explanation is just very, very, very, very slim. However, let's say that it is wrong. Proving evolution wrong is one thing. Proving that the earth is young is something else. Even though few will argue that evolution is absolutely and 100 % fact, that the earth is young.. be th estimate at 6000 years, 12,000 years or even a few hundred thousand years .. is plain and simply proven false. For the earth to be that young would mean virtually ALL of science.. almost all of biology and geology and archeology, but also much of chemistry, physics, etc. would have to be not just slightly off, but absolutely dead-assed wrong.

The truth is that God could have created the Earth in a microsecond, never mind 6 days. But did he? The evidence shows he did not. If he did, he did so, but made the earth look as if it were old. God has that power. God absolutely could have done that. But, first, that is not at all what young earth creationists assert. They assert there is proof that the earth is young, that evolution is "just wrong". Second, that is not how God has acted. Why would God decieve us in that manner? It is just not consistant with what we are taught in the Bible.

The idea that God's day is not 24 hours, however.. that is very much consistant with not only ancient Jewish and Christian scholarship, but it concurs with the data that is seen here on earth.

7 ) The answersincreation page actually addresses little to nothing from evidence from space, earth, and biology sections here maybe... http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_ ... idence.htm

Yes, I know that young earth creationists like to claim that creation of space, of earth, etc are all part of Evolution. This is simply not true. They are completely separate. The only connection is that all fields provide proof that the earth was not created in 6 revolutions of our earth.

As for "not answering" that was just one link, addressed to the specific point you mentioned.

You might be able to find numerous places online that do address things there though. How about we discuss and compare arguments even if that's the case? You want to simply have a match site for site discussion?

No, I am not getting into a "dueling of experts".
If you want to bring up individual points, I will address them (or let someone else more knowledgeable do so). However, as of yet you have not really answered a single point I bring up. You keep asking questions, even the same questions, and in a way that makes me feel you are reading a script you have been given, not anything you really and truly think or belief yourself.

8 ) Maybe this is rude of me to say and I will feel guilty and change this later, but should you accuse folks of misunderstanding science if you yourself just referred to radiometric dating like carbon dating was not an example of it?

I did not say it was not an example of it, I said it went beyond Carbon-14. Anyway, I am a broad concept person. I can talk specifically about fish and some about ecology, particularly as it relates to fish (not the mathematics).

See, science, has long since gotten far too broad and complex for any individual to be an expert or have more than a very base smattering of even a facet. I have learned about a lot of this years ago. However, the most important lesson I learned was how to obtain and evaluate information. All sources are not equal. Scientists in a particular field determine the procedures and methods that are appropriate to that field based on evidence. So, I don't have to know how Carbon 14 works. I DID learn about it way back in the dark ages when I was in elementary and then high school, even briefly in college. However, it is not something I use and so about all I remember is that carbon 14 has an unusually consistant decomposition rate (and I know that is not even the correct term). BUT, the big thing is that I know it is a method that has been tested again and again. I know creationists (and some others) try to challange it. I know that it has very definite limits.

But here is the thing. EVEN IF carbon 14 data were absolutely false, it would not nullify the theory of evolution. For one thing, carbon 14 dating is mostly used for more recent archeological dating. In fossils, the carbon has usually long since been replaced with other minerals (this is not necessarily always true, but often). The fossils I studied most are among the most ancient .. those of fish. It just is not a tool used. Instead, fossils are dated by looking at the rock layers where they are found. Once I got past my general education classes, I never heard about Carbon 14 again, though we did study fossils.

9 ) Even if yom has been used to refer to millions of years, did plants exist for millions of years without the sun?

Huh? Why are you even asking this?
Are you trying to claim that the sun was absent?

10 ) If Romans 5:12 does not mean to claim that there was no death before Adam, then what does it mean to claim? http://yahushua.net/scriptures/romans5.htm

How about answering my point regarding Genesis. That is, that Genesis flat out says that Adam and Eve have to be ejected before they sample the tree of life and gain immortality?

But, OK. This refers to spiritual death, not physical death. It is just another way of saying that we need Christ to save us from our sins. It is not a dispute of evolution or a reference to human beings being immortal. We were created mortal, from the very beginning. This is made clear, as I said, in Genesis.

What can the tree of life prove for you if He is outside time and has always known what was going to happen?

Sounds like another pre-fab question. But you are going to have to clarify. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

11 ) If Genesis 2:7 does not mean to claim that Yahuwah (sp?) formed Adam out of dust from the ground, then what does it mean to claim? http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen2.htm

He made Adam out of the dust. This is exactly what Evolution says. Evolution just takes a more convoluted route about it. I place no limitations on God.

12 ) If Genesis 7:19-22 does not mean to claim that every hill under the heavens were covered, then what does it mean to claim? http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm

What are you even trying to claim this proves?

So far, you have posted quite a few "questions" that don't seem to have anything at all to do with evolution. It sounds like you are making a LOT of pure assumptions and misguided questions about what you think I am supposed to say. How about reading what I actually write and answering the questions I have posed.

Also, how about simply tell Noah to walk up a mountain if there was not an earthwide flood?

Let's stick with evolution here. But who said I claimed there was no flood? Again, try sticking to what I actually say and not some script of things you think evolutionist believe. I have said again and again young earth creationists grossly misrepresent evolution. (whether you believe evolution or not, you ought to at least criticize real theories and not poppycock stuff that was invented solely for the purpose of proving it false)

13 ) Is someone really a Christian if they hold that no one has died and resurrected? How about question to ask yourself and not to answer in here?

Again .. how about you try answering things I actually say.

I am a Christian. Of course Christ died on the cross for our sins, was resurrected and now sits beside God.

The topic here is evolution. If you want to question my theology, please use another thread. (not gauranteeing I will answer. My faith is between God, myself and to some extent my family and church).

14 ) We do know what has happened in the past in regards to how much carbon-14 was produced in the atmosphere? What can geostrata or arctic and ocean core samples tell us about that? You mean to imply that people can use the carbon-14 method itself to test whether or not the carbon-14 method uses a faulty carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio?

Here is a wikki article on core sampling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_sample

For something like this, wikki gives a good overview. Perhaps after you read this, you will better understand what I was saying. If you still have questions, I will answer. Right now, you seem to be throwing darts, not asking real questions.

15 ) You yourself just claimed the amount of carbon on earth has varied a great deal?

If I did, it was a mistake. What I believe I wrote, what I certainly intended to write is that the atmosphere has changed and various other factors have changed.

Well, does the carbon-14 method not assume that the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio has always been 1 to 1 trillion?

try this link. It does a pretty good job of explaining carbon 14 dating. Note particularly the time frame for which it is used!
http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

16 ) Should we assume that individuals were selective in regards to what they published 30 years ago and all of a sudden that's not the case? Has anyone ever wanted to publish data contradicting them?

Assume what?
I questioned your use of a 30 year old article because science is continually advancing. Thirty years is an extremely long time, particularly in the field of biology and paleontology.

Beyond that, I specifically said that I would have to see the entire article to even begin to assess what was really said. Among other issues, there is sometimes a different standard for publishing reports from meetings and reports that are directly submitted to journals for evaluation. (rather the difference between a newspaper reporter saying "johnn h says broccoli is bad" and the reporter himself saying "broccoli is bad". ) But perhaps the biggest point is that if you wish to challenge a technique like Carbon 14 dating, a technique that HAS (despite what you wish to believe) been proven over and over and over, you will have to do better than a paragraph reference in a report from a meeting 30 years ago. One person might challenge it, but that does not equate to "the technique is wrong".

17 ) How about refer to a single tree dead or alive that's been dated to over 5,000 years with tree ring dating if there is one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine
from just under the heading "oldest living organisms"
Recently, Swedish researchers discovered a self-cloning spruce in Dalarna that has been dated to just under 10,000 years old
yep, back to wikki again. For just plain general information, it works.

18 ) Is there a book or place online where we can personally see dendrochronology samples lined up to apparently show over 5,000 years of time? Who knows how many times seperate disturbances have been lined up in error and who knows how many times missing rings have been inferred if that's common in BCP chronology?

I see, you want a source that you, untrained, can simply go and see? Nope, doesn't exist.

As for "how many times"... google archeological techniques, for heavans sake! You want to claim all this stuff is just gobbledy gook but won't bother to even do the most cursory search for any explanations!

As for "who knows".. its called "peer review". Archeologists and other scientists are constantly reviewing each other's work. It is a graduate student's dream (even some undergraduates try) to disprove something printed in a journal. Some do!

If you want to point to a specific criticism, fine, but when you try this "slap dash" "throw it all out and see what hits" approach to vast sections of science.. mostly what you show is your unwillingness to even try to understand what you criticize.

19 ) Is there not geneaology in scripture that suggests Adam was created about 6,000 years ago?

That was claimed at one time, but it is not what most experts now believe.

I tried to calculate once and got beyond 6000 years before I had even left the old testament, so I have no idea how this number even came about.

20 ) How is Adam any different from his old man if he has one?

What are you actually asking here?

21 ) What suggests to you that earth is billions of years old?

Science.

[PLAYER57832]

Creationism is one of the basic tenets of religion, it simply means a belief in a God who created our World.
Young Earth Creationism is a literal belief in the words of Genesis , it is utterly inflexible , it rails against Scientific progress ,does not make one a better Christian and is in effect a doctrine for Fuckwits.

Next....

Agreed. I may occasionally slip, but I try to refer to young earth Creationism.

I will clarify the title above.

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe you should ask yourself if you are ultimately arguing that the Tanakh and works in the so called NT were written by liars. Was there death before Adam? Was Adam created from dust of the ground? Was there a flood that covered the earth? Have individuals died and been resurrected?

I don't question the Bible, only what some human being try to claim the Bible says.

One of my biggest problems with creationism is not scientific but theological. At the heart of creationism lies the notion of the heresy of extreme literalism, the notion that every word and subsequently every translated word is one hundred percent checked for accuracy by God and guaranteed to be scientifically perfect and true, as understood by anyone in the 31st century (who, ironically, look upon us today as backward, primitive and narrow minded).

If you will permit me, I just want to get into the topic of how truth does not have to be literal to be true. After Salman Rushdie got into trouble for writing “The Satanic Verses” he wrote a children’s book called “Haroun and the Sea of Stories.” Eventually this was made into an opera by Charles Wuorinen with libretto by James Fenton, in 2001 and first performed by the New York City Opera in 2004. I watched that performance. One of the things that were repeated again and again in the story is the refrain “What’s the use of stories that aren’t even true?” Here we get into Herod’s question “what is truth?” In the end, the answer is obvious to even a casual observer; the use of stories that are not per se “true” are vital in that they contain within them a deeper truth. They are true, after all, just not true in the literal sense of truth.

In the Gospels, Jesus (and remember all of the Gospels are second hand accounts) teaches in parables, stories that aren’t even true. The “Prodigal Son” is not a real person, nor is the “Good Samarian.” Yet these stories have a deeper truth, a fundamental truth about the relationship between God and His people. Likewise, Jesus was not talking to Wikipedia searching people of the 21st century when he commented that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds because he was not making a Wikipedia entry about the world record holder of the smallest seed; he was making a comparison that a really small seed can make a really big tree and suggesting that really small actions can have a big impact upon the world. There are two major examples in the Bible of apocalyptic writing and the one most commonly known is the one in the New Testament, the Apocalypse. Here is the first two paragraphs of the introduction to the work in the New American Bible.

The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader. Symbolic language, however, is one of the chief characteristics of apocalyptic literature, of which this book is an outstanding example. Such literature enjoyed wide popularity in both Jewish and Christian circles from ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 200.

This book contains an account of visions in symbolic and allegorical language borrowed extensively from the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel. Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question.

As long as I am quoting introductions from the NAB, let’s get back on topic by quoting the introduction, not to Genesis but the whole Pentateuch or in Jewish terms the “Torah.”

The Pentateuch, which consists of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), enjoys particular prestige among the Jews as the "Law," or "Torah," the concrete expression of God's will in their regard. It is more than a body of legal doctrine, even though such material occupies many chapters, for it contains the story of the formation of the People of God: Abraham and the Patriarchs, Moses and the oppressed Hebrews in Egypt, the birth of Israel in the Sinai covenant, the journey to the threshold of the Promised Land, and the "discourses" of Moses.

The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historic traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. (They are conveniently abbreviated as J, E, P and D.) Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint--a rich variety of interpretation that the sensitive reader will take pains to appreciate. A superficial difference between two of these sources is responsible for their names: the Yahwist prefers the name Yahweh (represented in translation as Lord) by which God revealed himself to Israel; the Elohist prefers the generic name for God, Elohim. The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1. The Elohist is more sober, moralistic. The Priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. The Deuteronomic approach is characterized by the intense hortatory style of Deuteronomy 5-11, and by certain principles from which it works, such as the centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

There is truth in Genesis, but it is also easy to mistake symbolism for literalism and loose sight of the truth contained within. The fundamental problem with creationism is that they take these elements of symbolism, mistaken as literalism and attempt to weave from it a complex web of lies and deceit that cannot come from God because God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Good post!
The first paragraph is pretty much what most "mainline Protestant" churches and Roman Catholics believe (with some variations.. won't get into the minutia here), as well as many less easily defined Christian denominations.

The second part gets into a major discussion of how we should view the Bible. I definitely agree that this recent trend toward extreme word-by-word "literalism" is wrong (probably obvious from my post ...). I want to point out,for comparison, that many Jews see the entire book of Genesis as analogy.

[jay_a2j]

Have to give it to Lionz. He has been respectful and made his points whereas PLAYER has been condescending and arrogant. Unfortunately, God Himself most likely couldn't prove creationism to her.

Player can ramble in an unsufferable way but feels strongly about the dangers of Young Earth Creationism , Lionz is a thrice busted multi who Trolls the forums and is no doubt highly amused when somebody takes his bait. Jay thinks he is a Christian but is happy to ride the tail of the Devil to take a cheap shot at somebody who has often made him look foolish....you decide

No the problem is PLAYER puts her faith in her 5 senses where faith in God goes beyond those senses. She has never given an inch of room to where she COULD BE WRONG, because I believe in her mind this is impossible. I could just see her debating the Bible with God.

I'd like to see your proof that the Devil has a tail.

[PLAYER57832]

No the problem is PLAYER puts her faith in her 5 senses where faith in God goes beyond those senses. She has never given an inch of room to where she COULD BE WRONG, because I believe in her mind this is impossible. I could just see her debating the Bible with God.

Jay, don't assume everyone thinks like you or that folks who disagree with you have not considered your position fully. In fact, I not only consider that I can be wrong, I KNOW it. However, I also have at least 20 years on you in thinking about all of this. So, there are some things that I have just already debated ad nauseam.

Feel free to challenge me here. But insults.. well they say far more about you than I.

[jay_a2j]

Feel free to challenge me here. But insults.. well they say far more about you than I.

That's funny how that works and when you dish them out then what? Does that say anything about you? You are a joke.

[tzor]

jay, I don't want to complain but I've checked the entire thread. The only one who is throwing insults is ... YOU ... and you have been doing this since page 1.

[jay_a2j]

jay, I don't want to complain but I've checked the entire thread. The only one who is throwing insults is ... YOU ... and you have been doing this since page 1.

Look again at the OP.

[tzor]

Look again at the OP.

I did, and I maintain my position. I see no insults in the OP.

[jay_a2j]

I believe I already did define proven. You put forward frauds as if they were real, so yes.

Try reading what I cited.

Your misunderstanding is beyond astounding and into "troll" territory. None-the-less, I will answer.

There are other points where she is condescending and arrogant but I think we get the picture by now.


As for insults, see other threads. I'm particularly fond of the one where she calls me an idiot.

She can dish it out but apparently when someone dishes it back her feelings get hurt.

[Lionz]

PLAYER,

1 ) Do you not proclaim things as true that have not been proven true?

2 ) I have avoided what in terms of a point and answering? What do you want me to address?

Maybe whether or not I have put forward anything in a conquerclub forum as proof of anything comes down to definition.

3 ) If Masaaki Kimura is not an expert on the Yonaguni Monument, then who is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaaki_Kimura

Did he not graduate in science at the Faculty of Fisheries of the University of Tokyo in 1963 and obtain a Doctorate in marine geology in 1968? Has he not worked for the University of Tokyo's Ocean Research Institute, the Geological Survey of Japan, the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan, and Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory? Is he not currently the general director of Marine Science and Culture Heritage Research Association? Also, had he not made over 100 dives to study the Yonaguni Monument even as of 2002 according to this?

http://www.morien-institute.org/interview1_MK.html

And Schoch had only visited Yonaguni on two occasions in order to evaluate the site as of some point in 1999 according to this?

http://circulartimes.org/Enigmatic%20Yo ... S%20CT.htm

How many experts have you cited? Want me to refer to some more names?

4 ) What do you mean by this if you said this...

You want me to make guesses about what something that did not happen, is not true might possibly indicate?

5 ) I'm not claiming the Yonaguni Monument is actually 8,000 years old by any means and there's widespread misunderstanding regarding history on earth perhaps.

If you claim the truth is that there is no evidence that the Yonaguni Monument is anything but a natural formation that just happens to look strange, then can you define the word evidence for me?

6 ) What if wolves and coyotes share common ancestry and yet ants and whales do not? What specifically suggests to you that's not the case? You might claim that I ask the same things over and over, but have you really answered that?

You say stuff I don't understand maybe. Why would He decieve us in what manner?

7 ) How about we consider the moon and then work from there?

Astronomer Dr Don DeYoung (Professor of Physics, Grace College, Indiana), in a technical paper presented at the Second International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, USA, in 1990, raises an interesting problem for evolutionists.

There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon-some 70 million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or 30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes).

The effect of gravity depends on distance as well as mass, so the pull on the near side of the earth (to the moon) is greater than on the far side. This causes the land and (especially) sea surfaces to bulge in response, as is apparent to us in tides.

Because the presence of the moon over any part of the earth does not cause an immediate bulging response, this slight delay results in a continuous, slight, forward 'pull' on the moon, causing it to spiral slowly outwards, away from the earth. The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.

This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years.

That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago. This is clearly not an age for the moon, but an absolute maximum, given the most favourable evolutionary assumptions. Obviously, in a creation scenario, the moon does not have to begin at the earth's surface and slowly spiral out.* Evolutionist astronomers have not yet satisfactorily answered this, nor the lack of geological evidence that the moon has dramatically receded over the past 4.5 billion years, which would have to be so if their framework was correct.

Footnote
* The moon was probably created close to its present distance from the earth. Over 10,000 years, lunar recession amounts to less than one kilometre.

For the technical reader: since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 - Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, t = 1.37 x 109 years.

The September 1998 issue of Creation magazine has a feature article on the moon - its creation and purpose, that will cover this issue and much more. See online version.

Note: There are hyperlinks removed from that and there's one or more image not showing up for it and I am misquoting with it maybe... you might want to check this....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 4/moon.asp

I might ask quite a bit of questions and not be the most normal speaker ever, but you claim I have not really answered a single point you've brought up? What have you brought up for me to answer that I have not answered?

I was not meaning to suggest I actually wanted to have a match site for site discussion and came across wrong maybe.

8 ) You might have actually said this word for word ...

I will bring up carbon 14 information later, but the big thing is that it is not the most accurate testing method. That folks like Dr Morris harp on it is as fustrating to real scientists as the continual harping on "Darwin got it wrong in some details, so the whole theory is just obviously false" (he did get a LOT wrong, but was remarkable for his time and science has long since moved forward.)
Here is a discussion of a far better method, radiometric dating (and note, I believe even better methods have since been discovered.. also this has bee corroborated through various other means, including models of genetic drift, etc.)

Also, you claim carbon dating just is not a tool used and claim that fossils are dated by looking at rock layers where they are found instead and claim that you never heard about carbon 14 again after leaving general education classes? You just helped bring up one or more interesting point concerning how things are dated and back this up without realizing it perhaps...

Rocks by Fossils or Fossils by Rocks?

So, let’s see what the evolutionists say about this circular reasoning in the textbooks. Do they really use the fossils to date the rocks and the rocks to date the fossils? Well, here’s Glenco Biology. On page 306 they date the rocks by the fossils. On the very next page, page 307 they are dating the fossils by the rocks. Circular reasoning right in the text book. "The intelligent layman has long suspected the use of circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." (J.E. O’Rourke) "Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the nineteenth century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from very modern examples, which really are archeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." (Derek Ager) Don’t tell me they date those layers by carbon dating or potassium argon dating, or rubidium strontium, or lead 208, or lead 206, or U235 or U238; that’s not how they date them! They date the rock layers by the fossils in every case. "Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from." Quote goes on. "And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record." That’s Niles Eldredge, one of the biggest evolutionists there is. American Museum of Natural History in New York. He knows it’s circular reasoning.
How about this: "The rocks do date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." (Figure that one out) "Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." (J.E. O’Rourke) They have to use circular reasoning. "The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the concern of the public (In other words, it is none of your business) or…it can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice…. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning." (J.E. O’Rourke) Don’t tell me that you know the age of those rocks or those fossils because they are both based upon each other. It’s all based on circular reasoning. "…evolution is documented by geology, and… geology is documented by evolution." (Larry Azar) Figure that one out, would you please. It’s all based on circular reasoning. It cannot be denied. "…from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists here are arguing in a circle." (R.H. Rastall) They date the rocks by the organisms they contain and the organisms by the rocks they are found in. Folks, it’s all based on circular reasoning.
I like to show evolutionists the geologic column, and I ask them this question: "now, fellows," I’ll say, "you’ve got limestone scattered all throughout this geologic column. I mean there is limestone and shale and sandstone and conglomerate and limestone and sandstone and limestone and shale. And I say, "How do you tell the difference? If I hand you a piece of limestone, how would you tell the difference between 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone and 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone? I mean, how would you know how old it is?" There is only one way they can tell the difference: that is by the index fossils. It’s all based on that. "Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (J.E. O’Rourke) They don’t date them by carbon dating folks; it’s all based on fossils.

Note: There's one or more image not showing up for that and there are numbers in it that should be raised up and smaller and I am misquoting with it maybe... you might want to check this....

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/seminar4.html

9 ) Was the sun not created after plants on day 4th?

10 ) You adamantly claim that Romans 5:12 refers to physical death? You might be right, but we should be very careful maybe.

Has Yahuwah (sp?) always known that there would be rebellion? Did rebellion lead to death whether spiritually or physically or both? What does the tree of life prove for you regardless of when it was created if yes to both?

11 ) Did Yahuwah (sp?) form man of the dust of the ground and then proceed to breathe the breath of life into nostrils of him afterwards?

12 and 13 ) Do we have to stick with evolution? Maybe you should change a topic title if so. Is age of the earth off limits? I'm not sure if anyone's claimed you don't believe in the flood maybe.

I actually do believe in evolution to an extent and you have false assumptions about me maybe. Evidence suggests He created various kinds of creatures and they have brought forth variety after their kinds since and children are shown evidence for microevolution and then tricked into believing it necessarily means there's universal common descent maybe.

14 ) What does core sampling have to do with how much carbon-14 was produced in the atmosphere and who's throwing darts if you just referred to a wikipedia page that does not have the word carbon anywhere on it?

15 and 16) If there was a very different atmosphere on earth and a vastly greater amount of plantlife on earth before the flood, then has the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio remained constant?

This might even be trying to make a moot point after that, but how recent of contradictory carbon-14 dating results do you want to see if you want to see some? Unless you're arguing that there was human nature opposed to revealing information contradictory to oneself that was lost at some point since 1977?

17 ) I just pulled up a Bristlecone pine wikipedia article referred to by you that says up to nearly 5,000 years in the very first sentence of it perhaps.

Also, you refer to a root system of more than one tree that's been dated with carbon dating maybe. Regardless, carbon-14 dating tests carried out by a lab in the United States on three spruce tree root samples dated the trees' roots to be 5,000, 6,000, and 8,000 years old perhaps.

http://www.thelocal.se/11054/20080411/

How about refer to a single tree dead or alive that's been dated to over 5,000 years with tree ring dating if there is one?

18 ) I very much would like to see dendrochronology samples lined up for me to see whether I'm untrained in something or not perhaps. Would you not?

19 ) Who claims that the Tanakh doesn't suggest Adam was created about 6,000 years ago? It's actually 5770 right now on a mainstream Hebrew calendar used across the earth perhaps. We might actually be way closer to 6,000 though. Did you do calculating wrong? How off is this?

http://tfhi.org/Chart.html

20 ) I might not be sure of a good way to make that clearer, but do you theorize that Adam is the offspring of a male and female parent? How is Adam any different from the former if so?

21 ) What about science suggests to you that earth is billions of years old?

[tzor]

21 ) What about science suggests to you that earth is billions of years old?

Before I begin, I need to point out that God cannot deceive nor be deceived. If at any point you need to establish that God has to lie in order for something to be then, theologically, you fail. (Or you fall into heresy, your choice.)

My answer is simple: Pangaea proves that the earth is at least hundreds of millions of years old. Plate tectonics are easy to measure and observe. You can follow the continents backward and they all fit together. But it is more than just that, let’s go to Wikipedia …

Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid Lystrosaurus have been found in South Africa, India and Australia, alongside members of the Glossopteris flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile Mesosaurus has only been found in localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.[6]

Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa.

The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents which would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[7]

Apparent polar wandering paths also support the theory of a super-continent. Geologists can determine the movement of continental plates by examining the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks; when rocks are formed, they take on the magnetic properties of the Earth and indicate in which direction the poles lie relative to the rock. Because we know that the poles do not move more than a few degrees, magnetic anomalies in rocks can only be explained by the drifting of continents.[8]

The continuity of mountain chains also provide evidence for Pangea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain which extends from the northeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.[9]

^ Benton, M.J. Vertebrate Palaeontology. Third edition (Oxford 2005), 25.
^ Barbara W. Murck, Brian J. Skinner, Geology Today: Understanding Our Planet, Study Guide, Wiley, ISBN 978-0-471-32323-5
^ Philip Kearey, Keith A. Klepeis, Frederick J. Vine (2009). Global Tectonics (3rd. ed), p.67. Chichester:Wiley. ISBN 978-1-4051-0777-8
^ Zeeya Merali, Brian J. Skinner, Visualizing Earth Science, Wiley, ISBN 978-0470-41847-5

You can’t have Pangaea in less than six thousand years, never mind the potential for other super continents before that. All the evidence points to Pangaea … therefore in order for a six thousand year timeframe God must plant lies to give the illusion of an older earth, but God cannot deceive nor be deceived. Therefore the earth is at least in the order of millions of years old.

[john9blue]

Before I begin, I need to point out that God cannot deceive nor be deceived. If at any point you need to establish that God has to lie in order for something to be then, theologically, you fail. (Or you fall into heresy, your choice.)

Where did you get that?

[Lionz]

Tzor,

You sure Australia has not been next to both Africa and South America?





And sure earth itself has not grown and expanded in size as a whole?









Continents have spread and are spreading perhaps, but should we ever assume there's a constant rate in anything if we are only witnesses to a sample size of it? What if plates broke open in earth and land masses spread apart quite quickly about 4,400 years ago? See stretch marks below?

[Symmetry]

[quote="Lionz"]Tzor,

You sure Australia has not been next to both Africa and South America?

[img]http://i38.tinypic.com/28kk65e.jpg[/img

[img]http://web.mst.edu/~sgao/g51/plots/0829_07_jigsaw.jpg[/img

And sure earth itself has not grown and expanded in size as a whole?

[img]http://mysteriousuniverse.org/uploads/2007/03/earth_small.jpg[/img

[img]http://www.theearthexpanded.com/images/180px-Growing_earth.gif[/img

[img]http://theearthexpanded.com/sitebuilder/images/cap0000-237x187.png[/img
[img]http://theearthexpanded.com/images/Production_3-249x186.png[/img
[img]http://theearthexpanded.com/images/Production_4-234x185.png[/img
Continents have spread and are spreading perhaps, but should we ever assume there's a contant rate in anything if we are only witnesses to a samply size of it? What if plates broke open in earth and land masses spread apart quite quickly about 4,400 years ago? See stretch marks below?

[img]http://i50.tinypic.com/9plw06.jpg[/img

[img]http://i36.tinypic.com/161iyp2.jpg[/img

[img]http://s8int.com/images4/geomagnetic3.jpg[/img[/quote

Random pictures again

[jay_a2j]

There appears to be some confusion here. I do not, nor do I know anyone who believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old. BUT that from ADAM to present day is 6,000 years.

But hey, maybe there are some who believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Could God have accomplished this feat? You betcha!

[THORNHEART]

the chances of the earth being billions of years old....is laughable

its almost like saying....hey we evolved from monkeys but monkeys still run around and there are hundreds of thousands of monkeys and billions of people but the "inbetween" links are are fakes or only like 1 tooth that could easily be something else...

or like saying hey I am not going to believe in God cause thats dumb...but I will believe to non living atoms in space collided and made everything thats alive and not alive.

or like saying hey I know that all the laws of science revolve around each other and would seem to be put in place by a creator but thats a dumb conclusion to make I think its all random.

or even better the chances of player actually deciding which side of the debate she is on instead of just taking bits of each side to make her own fantasy

[nietzsche]

Who is supporting Creationism in the thread? You know is confusing really, with all the quotes and all.

I think those who go on and debate creationism over evolution need to learn a bit about evolution(a lot in this case, since it's a theory composed of many facts).

What can we assume of those believers in a creator that go on and post for a lost cause? Are they in the road to discovery? Are they super-believers and are upset of anyone who says otherwise?

Back again to Nietzsche, what you say is only a the tip of the iceberg of what your unconscious (or subconscious or your whole body, call it what you want) wants.

To loose the belief is a hard thing to happen, and don't expect to happen here, rather they'll fight like cats with the back in the floor. But, what if they read about evolution, one book, then another book, maybe for the third book they have a more open mind about it. Then they'll face a crisis, they more deep-rooted beliefs fighting with their conscious mind.

Some are way past the no-return point, and they will never stop believing, so this debate will go on and on, and theories and ideas and proofs will never mean anything to them. We, the non-believers will practice or debate skills and get headaches over rather uninformed replies and trying to make sense of quoting the qoute of the guy who quoted the.. you get the idea.

Positivism has brought great things to our era, and spirituality is for some lost. Let me remind you that you don't need to be a believer to be spiritual, whatever that means.

[Lionz]

Niet,

What if He created various kinds of creatures and they have brought forth variety after their kinds since? What suggests that butterflies and sea horses share common ancestry?

[nietzsche]

Neit,

What if He created various kinds of creatures and they have brought forth variety after their kinds since? What suggests that butterflies and sea horses share common ancestry?

You can play with the 0.01% left of possibility for creation all you want, that's a lot of space for some creative minds. That doesn't come even close to the other 99.99% of hard facts evolution has accumulated.

[Lionz]

What hard facts do you refer to if you mean universal common descent macroevolution?