Lionz wrote:PLAYER,
1 ) Do you not proclaim things as true that have not been proven true?
Well, I make mistakes, of course. However, I try very hard to use a very strict standard for what I say is a fact. In fact, I tend to be pretty careful even about things I very much believe to be true, upon which I would stake a lot. (example, I will not say I can prove God exists or that he is a fact I can prove to people who do not believe, but also note my comments to snorri 's claims that God is "just fiction" and other things he wishes to say are "fact".)
Lionz wrote:2 ) I have avoided what in terms of a point and answering? What do you want me to address?
Shorter to say what you have answered --- NOTHING.
I post 3 very long posts. You don't even mention them and instead launch into this only tangentially related line of questioning. AND you keep harping on this "what is proof" questioning, even though
I have answered it many times already.
Lionz wrote:Maybe whether or not I have put forward anything in a conquerclub forum as proof of anything comes down to definition.
Only if you think its OK to change the english language to the point of obscurity. There IS an accepted definition for facts and proof. You don't even acknowledge my repeated responses to your questions. This is why I say your questions are far more trolling than true answers.
And jay -- for the record, read this carefully. It is not the questions themselves that make me say "troll", it is the fact that Lionz asks and then doesn't seem to even bother to read responses. AND more often than not, leads back with questions that, essentially, want me to accept something I already said is incorrect in order to even answer. I don't care the debate, that is a troll tactic. Still, I answer.
I am not getting into that debate. I posted a link that you clearly could not be bothered to read. I already told you what is needed to prove these theories or even to get them accepted by the wider scientific community. You ignore those points.
I ALSO told you why even if it were proven, it is at best irrelevant and more likely further proof against young earth creationism. You refuse to even clarify why you seem to think this is so important.
(and no, that there is dispute over this is not reason to throw out reams of verified archeology).
Lionz wrote: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
relevance?
Your point?
Lionz wrote:How many experts have you cited? Want me to refer to some more names?
relevance to this thread?
Lionz wrote: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?
Yes, typical. I tell you to clarify and you respond with "what do you mean?
You state garbage and then ask me to answer a question as if the garbage were true. This is pretty typical of young earth creationist debate, but it is not a legitimate debate or discussion tactic.
Again... you make it clear you just want to try and poke holes. You ask questions, but don't even bother to pay attention to the answers and instead launch into a further line of questions that has really no relation to what I said. This is what people reading from scripts and robots do, not real human beings in real discussions.
Lionz wrote: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.
Look, I know you can use proper english, so if you wish to continue USE IT!
Anyway, what is your point here?
Lionz wrote: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?
Already did, more than once.
Lionz wrote:6 ) What if wolves and coyotes share common ancestry and yet ants and whales do not?
EXACTLY what I meant by making a garbage assertion and then trying to frame it into a question. The FACTS are that they are related, but very, very, very, very distantly.
Lionz wrote: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?
If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would see pretty clearly that I said no such thing. They all are related.
Again, comments like this are what make me say "troll".
Lionz wrote:You say stuff I don't understand maybe. Why would He decieve us in what manner?
Try reading. If you are not capable, then why bother even asking the questions.
Lionz wrote:7 ) How about we consider the moon and then work from there?
How about that has nothing to do with evolution, so if you want to talk about it, start another thread.
Lionz wrote:
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.aspI 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.
Maybe Neoteny or someone else would like to answer this. All I am going say is that publication in Creation magazine does not require meeting the standards of real science.
Lionz wrote: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...
No, try reading again.
Carbon 14 had little to do with fossil dating (most fossils). THAT is what I said, and therefore is pretty irrelevant to most of the discussion of evolution. It IS used in recent archeology and HAS been verified. I myself am not currently an expert in the technique, no. Again, you are reading from a script, not really thinking about what I am actually saying here. And, you clearly did not bother to read the links I provided.
Lionz wrote:
Rocks by Fossils or Fossils by Rocks?
So, letās 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, hereās 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. OāRourke) "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) Donāt 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; thatās 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." Thatās Niles Eldredge, one of the biggest evolutionists there is. American Museum of Natural History in New York. He knows itās 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. OāRourke) 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) orā¦it can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practiceā¦. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning." (J.E. OāRourke) Donāt tell me that you know the age of those rocks or those fossils because they are both based upon each other. Itās all based on circular reasoning. "ā¦evolution is documented by geology, and⦠geology is documented by evolution." (Larry Azar) Figure that one out, would you please. Itās all based on circular reasoning. It cannot be denied. "ā¦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, itās all based on circular reasoning.
I like to show evolutionists the geologic column, and I ask them this question: "now, fellows," Iāll say, "youāve 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. Itās all based on that. "Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (J.E. OāRourke) They donāt date them by carbon dating folks; itās all based on fossils.
This is just wrong on so many levels, its hard to even begin.
Try going back to what I HAVE said. This addresses nothing I mentioned.
Lionz wrote: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
I will, after you show even the slightest tendency to actually read and consider what I have written. So far, you are acting like a trained monkey.. and one I have debated many times already, with respect. That respect drains when it becomes obvious that no words or debate will be heard, that young earth creationists think its perfectly OK to simply bombard people with questions that have little or no point, get more and more irrelevant. When evolutionists decide they are talking to an idiot or a trained monkey instead of a real person, the young earthers take that as "evidence of defeat". In the real world, its evidence that one has encountered a blind idiot who won't even bother to pay attention to what they are told, but thinks its perfectly OK to keep talking.
I have LOT of patience in this, but read what I write and respond to what I write, not whatever script you think you are supposed to follow.
Lionz wrote:10 ) You adamantly claim that Romans 5:12 refers to physical death? You might be right, but we should be very careful maybe.
No, I absolutely did not.
Lionz wrote: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?
Go back and read what I wrote.
Lionz wrote: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?
Yes, but not in the way you wish to claim. I am not debating this point more because it is a dead end. I have told you what I believe and why. Again, address what I wrote, not the script you seem to be following.
Lionz wrote: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.
One topic at a time. Right now, I am talking about evolution. I might (?) tackle the flood in another thread, but not if the debate is going to go like this one where you bombard me with questions and then completely ignore every answer I give.
As for the initial creation, no I won't get into that any further because it is not my field.
Lionz wrote: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.
Again, use real english.
But no, this is not true. The only people tricking children are those who wish to claim there is evidence behind young earth creationism and that there is no evidence for evolution.
Lionz wrote: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?
Read the links.
You ask a question. I answer and you won't bother to read the answer.
Lionz wrote: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?
You start with many false assumptions in this question. Most of evolution occured long before people appeared and therefore long before the flood. The Bible only deals with human history and then primarily the history of the Jewish people.
Lionz wrote: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?
ALL scientific techniques have various errors. They are used within the boundaries those errors "define". If I want to know the distance to the next town, I use my odometer. I is not, in one sense as "accurate" as a tape measure. However, the time it would take to run a tape measure, PLUS the compounded individual errors due to the small "sways" in the tape, my ability to precisely line up the tape measure correctly each time, etc means that the tape measure is not only impractical for measuring very long distances, it is actually
less accurate. A surveyor will use other tools yet to get a very precise (sometimes
extremely precise) measure of long distances for maps and planning, etc. The proper tool for the proper use. Carbon-14 dating has been verified accurate within specific limits. Used within those limits, it is quite valuable.
Dr Morris, the Creation Science Institute, and you here are trying to make it out to something it is not.
Lionz wrote: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.
Congratulations! you actually did read something. However, you ignored what I said next, which was to page down to the next part.
Lionz wrote: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/.
No, I never mentioned "root systems" at all. Go back and read what I wrote. Then I will answer.
Lionz wrote: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?
go back to that link I gave before and
this time read more than the first sentence! The answer is there. That is why I posted the link in response to the question when you asked it earlier.
Lionz wrote: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?
Please, you are not stupid. I have seen dendrochronology samples. You can find cut tree slabs and such in many parks. I also read the captions and yes, do believe the scientists who say what they represent. I know enough to know they speak the truth, but I don't have the time to be an expert in tree rings myself. Few people do. That is why they are called "experts".
Lionz wrote: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?
Actually, even Dr. Morris now uses an older time frame. (last time I checked, he mentioned 12,000 years). I am not debating the geneology. I mentioned my early attempt just as an aside. The earth is calculated to be roughly
4.5 billion years old. This thread, though is about evolution.
Lionz wrote:http://tfhi.org/Chart.html20 ) 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?
You make an assumption and then ask a question as if that
assumption were true. Again, try addressing things I have actually said, not your script of what you
think I might say.
Lionz wrote:21 ) What about science suggests to you that earth is billions of years old?
Read what I wrote the last few times you asked this question or ones similar enough that my response answers this question.
Actually, just read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationismI make no secret of my general disdain for wikki as a source, but this article is pretty decent.