young earth Creationism .. again

[nietzsche]

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

That's what I meant with my initial post. What can I respond? carbon dating for the ludacris 6000 years of the earth? The thousands of fossils showing evolution of (at least) bones? Or can I say philosophically that the idea of a creator comes from the thought that design needs a creator, i.e. you see a clock (to be original) you assume there was a clock maker, so if you see a homo sapiens you assume there's a god?

Aren't you happy with your 0.01%?

Can I refer you to 1 book only, easy to read, enjoyable and from an American Philosopher widely respected?
I'm sure that if you order it tonight on Amazon you have it in this week, and you can eat it in the weekend.

[Lionz]

What about carbon dating?

Does the fossil record really back up macroevolution?

NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those). Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.

As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7

In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.8

Richard Dawkins’ evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:

However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]

That's missing one or more hyperlink and including numbers that should be raised up and smaller and it's a misquote maybe... you might want to go here and compare... http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

You refer to a book that can be read with scribd online for free?

[nietzsche]

Right.

All them are arguing that they need more proof. That they know evolution is they key but they wish they had videos of it happening. It doesn't work that way. However, those you quoted are believers in evolution. Not sure about Sunderland I think she'd more inclined to the American way of philosophy. Gould is a detractor sometimes but he as been of great help to make others make better arguments. Pardon me if I'm confusing them, you see I'm not an expert only an amateur of philosophy.

Darwin just started the modern movement, there are records of other philosophers pointing in that direction since the Greeks.

Evolution is the only plausible theory after one learns there was no creator (at least not after the big bang, I believe bold thinkers ave theories about what happened before, the truth is that if we don't find more essential laws of physics we can't deduct what happened before).

Would we ever get a 100% security there was no creator and evolution is the truth? We won't. But we can show why the whole idea of a god is wrong. There are scientist working on construct a better theory, with more plausible arguments and you choose to quote those 4 or 5, and only in their doubt, you take them out of context too. Have you read a whole book of Dawkins? Why don't you quote Dennet too?

A chart showing the most respected scientists and philosopers and their belief or not in evolution would be helpful, but I guess there is not such a thing, and they wouldn't like it anyway, being utterly reductionist.

People, little help here, I know there are more informed ones in evolution around, I'm merely making a fool of myself having not exact data. I've been always been like that, can't remember data only conclusions.

[nietzsche]

NOVA: What is God's role in a Darwinian world?

Dennett: After Darwin, God's role changes from being the designer of all creatures great and small to being the designer of the laws of nature, from which natural selection can unfold, to being perhaps just the chooser of the laws. By the time God's role has been so diminished, he becomes a bit like a constitutional monarch, presiding ceremonially but not having any more work to do. Now, that's a place for God if it makes people comfortable to keep God as the presider over the universe. I suppose that is satisfying for many.

I don't myself need that role for God. My view is that creation itself, the universe itself, is the most wonderful thing deserving awe and respect. And that satisfies me as my substitute for God. Now, that's a view with an ancient tradition. Spinoza had a famous phrase, "God or nature, one and the same thing." I agree with Spinoza.

wow, thanks Lionz, learning that Dennet shows respect for Spinoza is a great thing for me, since I love Spinoza's and Dennet's philosophies.

[fumandomuerte]

Wow, a lot of fanatics around here... Scary enough .

[nietzsche]

NOVA: Why is evolution the most "discombobulating" of all scientific discoveries?

Gould: Science can't tell us what our life means ethically. It can't tell us what we are meant to do as moral creatures. But, insofar as science can understand what we're made of, and what we're related to, the Darwinian revolution completely revised our ideas about who we are and what we're related to and how long we've been here and why we're on this Earth, again, in the limited ways that science can apprehend or comprehend those questions.

So it, in many ways, was the singularly deepest and most discombobulating of all discoveries that science has ever made. And that it is so factually firm and so well documented merely makes it all the more salient, because it isn't just a conjecture; it's an entire reconstruction of our concept of ourselves and who we are that is as well documented as anything we've ever learned in science

fumandomuerte: Miercoles- America 5-0 Pumas

[fumandomuerte]

fumandomuerte: Miercoles- America 5-0 Pumas

"If you don't cotrol it don't abuse it"
5-0? are you going to play with 12+ as usual?

[nietzsche]

NOVA: Can a traditional Catholic accept evolution?

Ken Miller: My students often ask me, "You say you believe in God. Well, what kind of God? Is it a fashionable New Age God? A pyramid power kind of God? Do you think, like some scientists do, that God is the sum total of the laws of physics?" And I shake those off and say that my religious belief is entirely conventional. I'm a Roman Catholic, a very traditional kind of religious person. And my Roman Catholicism is entirely conventional. It surprises students very often that anyone could say that that kind of traditional, conventional religious belief could be compatible with evolution, but it is. And it is in a remarkable way.

Sometimes I like to tell students, in a sense, that I believe in Darwin's God. Now, I don't mean that my religious beliefs or those of other scientists are exactly the same as Charles Darwin's. What I do mean is that my view of God is that of a deity who could set in motion and guide all of the processes that Darwin himself described.

So not only was Darwin right about the origin of species, and not only was Darwin right about the mechanisms of evolutionary change, but there's nothing about those origins or that mechanism of change that is inherently antithetical to religion, nothing in it that goes against religious belief. And, therefore, I sort of find this absolutely wonderful consistency with what I understand about the universe from science and what I understand about the universe from faith.


Now, that's a desperate attempt to keep believing in god

[nietzsche]

"Thanks to powerful, cheap DNA sequencing technology, scientists can now pinpoint the molecular changes underlying this rapid evolution. Bernard Palsson and his colleagues at the University of California in San Diego have observed bacteria evolve in their lab. Over the course of a few weeks, the bacteria adapted to a new kind of food (a chemical called glycerol). The scientists sequenced the complete genome of the ancestral germ and its evolved descendants and looked for differences in their DNA. They identified a handful of new mutations that has arisen in the bacteria and spread throughout the population. When the scientists added those mutations to the ancestral germ, it became able to feed on the new food just as its descendants did."

[Skittles!]

OMG HOW CAN YOU NOT BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM IT IS LIKE THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY THE EARTH AND UNVIERSE WERE CREATE OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG

OH SHIT I USED LORDS NAME IN VAINNNNN

[joecoolfrog]

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!

Congratulations on announcing that a Magical omnipotent Being COULD have created the Earth, truly such insight is inspiring.........DOH

[Skittles!]

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!

Yet there's still evidence against the proposition that Adam was 'created' 6000 years ago.

[PLAYER57832]

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".)

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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?

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

Your point?

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

relevance to this thread?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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?

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.

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_creationism
I make no secret of my general disdain for wikki as a source, but this article is pretty decent.

[tzor]

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.

This is indeed a different and interesting question, the exact number of years between THE MAN and today. A lot of this has to do with Genesis 5. So with that, let’s look carefully at the New American Bible note for this chapter: Although this chapter, with its highly schematic form, belongs to the relatively late "Priestly document," it is based on very ancient traditions. Together with Genesis 11:10-26, its primary purpose is to bridge the genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham. Adam's line is traced through Seth, but several names in the series are the same as, or similar to, certain names in Cain's line (Genesis 4:17-19). The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value. Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.

[PLAYER57832]

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!

Actually, Jay, if Adam was created only 6 days after the beginning, then that would round off to "6000 years". I don't know the full history of this date, but it became popular in the early part of last century, mostly in the US among "Bible belt" preachers.

Much as I hate wikki, this summary of young earth creationism and its comparison to standard scientific thinking is pretty decent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

[PLAYER57832]

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"

I see. Do you have cousins? Do they share your last name? Superficially, the transposition of names is very much like that of gene inherentance. In most societies' children get their last name from their father, though there are some exceptions. This is roughly analagous to the general rule that one gene is dominant over another. Just as there are some seeming exceptions and true exceptions to the "recessive/dominance" "rules, there are exceptions in the naming "rules" also. (some societies use mother's names, some don't have last names ... etc.) You also have people who change their names (roughly analogous to mutations).

Since I don't know your family, I will take mine.

My children share my husband's name. This name traces back to roughly 11 AD. That would be the direct line of descent. BUT, they have cousins in each generation back, only some of which share their name. My name is unique. My father came here back when "americanisation" was the rage and was advised to alter the spelling. Interestingly, HIS father had also changed his name for "historical" reasons irrelevant to this tale. (this is part of why my father had no hesitation to change his name further.. it was not a true historic family name).

It so happens that my brothers only have daughters, to date. Unless they have a male child, that name will be gone. Call it an "evolutionary dead end". Does that mean I don't exist? Don't their daughters exist? Yes, but the "trait" of their last name is "recessive" , being tied to females who most likely won't carry their family names past marriage. Times being what they are, they might, but let's keep the explanation somewhat simple. (all such complications DO occur in real genetics) Pretend that if they have children, they will definitely take their fathers name.

HOWEVER, if you go back another generation, I have many, many, many cousins. For this "tale", I'll pretend there is an even mix of males and females. So, roughly half carry the name my father had as a child. Roughly half have assorted other names. Of the half that have my father's father's name (the "first" change), half of those are male, grow up and pass on their names to roughly 1/2 of their children.

Anyway, the bottom line is that these names can be passed on, but the original name still persists. In my son's case, the name goes back tp 11 AD. Not long in genetic terms, but pretty long in terms of human last names!

So, to get back to species, why do young earth creationists try to insist that once new species arise, the original species simply must be gone? Often, that IS the case. However, it is not always. We still have horseshoe crabs, Nautilus and Ceolocanths. I am definitely NOT saying each of these, themselves, is the direct descendent of us. I do not believe they are. (could be wrong in that). Each of these species is the equivalent of the male last name. The new species, by contrast, are the equivalent of the females. They change. Along the way the "females" all take on lots of different names (new traits). Some persist and become new species. (maybe equivalent to migration of humans to a new country or tribe) Some "die off" and disappear. However, the persistance of the new in no way means that the old name OR old trait OR old species has to have disappeared.

Yes, this is an extremely simplistic example, but it still holds roughly true. Inheritance of BOTH names and genes is actually much more complicated than the above example in fairly similar ways. (superficially)

links are are fakes or only like 1 tooth that could easily be something else...

In the case of 1 tooth, sometimes you are correct. Look at the criticism of the models of "giganticus", for an example.

But there is a lot more than isolated "teeth" or single bones of any kind. And a good many scientists have looked at them, analyzed them in many, many ways. Dr Morris decided he could not understand it all. He convinced a lot of people to put money into his efforts. Even so, why would a Christian spend so much time, effort and money completely and utterly denying evidence that does exist?

or like saying hey I am not going to believe in God cause thats dumb

God exists. This is not a debate over God. It is a debate over what method he might have used to create life on Earth. I am sorry you have been lead to believe that the only people who accept evolution are atheists. This is absolutely and completely not true. The overwhelming majority of people who accept evolution also very much accept God, the Bible, etc.

...but I will believe to non living atoms in space collided and made everything thats alive and not alive.

relevance?

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.

This is not what evolutionists or really any scientist actually say. It is what Creation "scientists" try to claim evolutionists say.

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

Yep.. of course, when you cannot counter a debate, fall back on insults. Too bad. You have a chance to actually LEARN something new here.

Education means considering those points with which you don't agree, not just reading sources that tell you what you already believe to be true.

[PLAYER57832]

Tzor,

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

I won't get into this further in this particular thread, but even I (not a Geologist, not an expert in plate techtonics, that is) can answer this.

Plain and simply, the evidence shows what happened. See, you want to pull something out of your hat, as if any idea you can come up with is equal to what has been shown to be true through evidence.

Is it perhaps reasonable to have considered other possibile "tracks" or "joinings" of the continents? At one point, perhaps. In fact, I have seen some different "patterns" suggested from early reports. HOWEVER, they are not what the evidence showed. In reality, most other patterns were never really considered for long because the whole theory of plate techtonics was an idea many thought pretty incredible and which only came about because the evidence kept showing that to be the most, the only explanation. By the time enough evidence was gathered to show it could be true, the arrangement of the plates was already shown by the evidence.

But, had you bothered to follow the links I gave earlier, or even just looked up "plate techtonics" on the web, you would have read the explanation already. You wish to pretend no answer exists, because you won't bother to look for one.

[PLAYER57832]

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?

The fossil record. You can ask this as many times as you like, of as many people, but anyone even slightly knowledgeable will give you that same basic answer. (and note that a LOT of people are not even slightly knowledgeable!) You have already decided to ignore the answers. Why bother asking over and over? (except to be a troll, perhaps?)

[PLAYER57832]

Right.

All them are arguing that they need more proof. That they know evolution is they key but they wish they had videos of it happening. It doesn't work that way. However, those you quoted are believers in evolution. Not sure about Sunderland I think she'd more inclined to the American way of philosophy. Gould is a detractor sometimes but he as been of great help to make others make better arguments. Pardon me if I'm confusing them, you see I'm not an expert only an amateur of philosophy.

Darwin just started the modern movement, there are records of other philosophers pointing in that direction since the Greeks.

Your post was great up to this point.

Evolution is the only plausible theory after one learns there was no creator (at least not after the big bang, I believe bold thinkers ave theories about what happened before, the truth is that if we don't find more essential laws of physics we can't deduct what happened before).

This kind of assertion is precisely what gives young earthers their fodder AND insults the vast majority of believers who absolutely accept real science.

You are welcome to deny God. He cannot be proven by scientific methods. "Evolution" (the full and complete set of theories) has holes, is not a fully understood history. The broader theory, "evolution" that things change over time, that one species can shift into another, etc. is fact. HOWEVER, when you leap from that to claims that "evolution is the only plausible theory once one learns there was no creator", you go from science to your own brand of fairy tale fiction. That YOU find it more believeable than my beliefs is not what sets the line between credibility and not. The line is one of evidence. That you cannot prove or know what happened in the intial creation, that no scientist can come up with an explanation means no one really and truly knows what happened. As has been said before many, many times, lack of evidence is NOT evidence.

When you make such comments you insult a very, very long line of very intelligent and credible scientists. You do not set yourself up as intelligent, but as a narrow-minded bigot who thinks his ideas are far superior to others, represent "fact", despite the fact that no real and true proof exists.

The TRUTH is that evolution is proven through evidence. It has nothing at all to do with proof or denial of God. It is proof that the earth is old, that the very narrow interpretation of a small group of Christians (and a smattering of others) who insist that Genesis means the earth was created in 6 revolutions of the earth. THAT is the point of debate. Please, please stop giving these people fodder by agreeing with them that evolution=atheism. You step way outside of science with such assertions and do the debate no good at all!

People, little help here, I know there are more informed ones in evolution around, I'm merely making a fool of myself having not exact data. I've been always been like that, can't remember data only conclusions.

If this thread leaps from the troll territory where it now seems to lie and becomes a real debate, like much of Widowmaker's thread was, I expect a few will step in.

Right now, we are simply going round and round with lionz not even reading most of the responses he is given.

[Timminz]

You have to admit Player, creationism isn't a viable option for someone who has reached the conclusion that there is no Creator. Therefore, "Evolution is the only plausible theory...".

[PLAYER57832]

You have to admit Player, creationism isn't a viable option for someone who has reached the conclusion that there is no Creator. Therefore, "Evolution is the only plausible theory...".

Whether a creator does or does not exist is utterly and completely irrelevant to the evidence for evolution. Further, MOST people who accept evolution, particularly in the US, absolutely accept there is a creator. This is why so many polls show a high acceptance of creationism. "Creationism" simply says you accept that God or god made the earth. Lionz is defending, I am debating, against young earth creationism. The term does get abused a lot, but the fact is that most people on earth are actually creationists, AND evolutionists. Only a small group, mostly in the US, believes in young earth creationism.

Further, not only to most people in the world believe both in a creator and in evolution, there are people who don't accept a creator who none-the-less believe the earth is young. So no, it really is not a valid argument against a young earth.

Attempting to tie denial of god to evolution as a requirement of some kind is very unscientific, narrow-minded and plain insulting to most real scientists. It is also completely irrelevant to the debate in this thread.

[Timminz]

If you say so.

In my opinion, your righteous indignation is misplaced, in this instance.

[PLAYER57832]

If you say so.

In my opinion, your righteous indignation is misplaced, in this instance.

I just edited my comment above to be clearer. Please reread it.

Your position is at least as harmful as the opposition.

[Timminz]

If you say so.

In my opinion, your righteous indignation is misplaced, in this instance.

I just edited my comment above to be clearer. Please reread it.

Your position is at least as harmful as the opposition.

To be accurate, it was niet's position. I'm just saying that way it was worded made perfect logical sense to me. It's a fairly simple if/then statement, when broken down a bit.
--------------------------
If, one has come to the conclusion that there is no God (the Creator).
Then, any creationist possibility is removed.
---------------------------
Or, another way, to deny a creator, is to deny creationism. Always.


Perhaps I'm misreading what he wrote though.

[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!

Actually, Jay, if Adam was created only 6 days after the beginning, then that would round off to "6000 years". I don't know the full history of this date, but it became popular in the early part of last century, mostly in the US among "Bible belt" preachers.

Much as I hate wikki, this summary of young earth creationism and its comparison to standard scientific thinking is pretty decent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

In that case, assuming you believe that each "day" was 1,000 years, from creation to today would be roughly 12,000 years.