I know that you all feel this topic has been beaten to death, but I found different evidences of a young earth on these sites than I have on others. I am interested in seeing what the evolutionists have to say.

Believe it or not, I am an objective thinker. Simply because I have chosen to be a Christian does not mean that I am not open to honest, logical debate, nor that I think every aspect of evolution is incorrect. Often, it is just taken out of context.

Anywho, on with the show.



"Before I begin addressing one-by-one the arguments for a young Earth, I think it is important to explain some errors that are repeatedly committed in these arguments. The first fallacy is claiming that an unexplained mystery supports the creationist view simply because science is not currently able to explain it, and the second fallacy is looking at only one side of a natural equilibrium and claiming that an unlimited build-up would occur, posing a challenge to mainstream science." http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/yeclaimsbeta.html

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

"One of the principal forces which has traditionally driven estimates of an old age for the earth is the necessity for long periods of time for evolution. Even before radioactivity was discovered in the 1890s, estimates of the age of the earth were growing longer and longer as the complex nature of life became more evident. However, it has never been demonstrated that the evolution of life from inorganic chemicals has occurred or that life has evolved from simple life forms to the complex ones we see today. Living systems, even the simplest ones, are based upon symbolic language structures of extreme complexity. There is no hint in the laws of chemistry and physics that matter on its own can ever generate symbolic language regardless of the time allowed. Because it has no solution to this fundamental difficulty, evolutionary dogma is now facing a major crisis that long periods of time simply cannot mend." http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf

"There are several problems with the creationist approach to the big bang however. First, it is obvious that in some papers creationists have improperly stated the big bang model. For instance, some have assumed that the geometry of the universe is Euclidean, while others picture the big bang as having been an explosion of matter and energy into preexisting space and time [1], [2]. The standard model actually assumes non-Euclidean geometry, and the big bang is not so much an explosion of matter into space as it was an explosion of space and time as well. In other words, there was no space or time before the big bang. Others deride the standard cosmology by asking such questions as "how can an explosion give rise to complexity?" What is missed in this is that the name "big bang" is a bit of a misnomer, and that the standard model has never actually been proposed as an explosion. A few years ago a popular astronomy magazine held a contest to give a better name for the standard cosmogony - no one won [8]. If a creationist misunderstands these basics of the big bang model, then would any of his conclusions regarding the big bang be valid?" http://www.icr.org/research/df/index.html

"It is obvious, of course, that the Bible is not a scientific textbook in the sense of giving detailed technical descriptions and mathematical formulations of natural phenomena. But this is not adequate reason for questioning the objective accuracy of those numerous portions of Scripture which do deal with natural phenomena and historical events.

It is salutary for anyone dealing with questions of this sort to recognize the essential nature of faith and presuppositions in his reasonings. "Science" (the very meaning of which is knowledge) necessarily can deal only with those things which exist at present. The scientific method involves reproducibility, the study of present natural processes. When men attempt to interpret the events of the prehistoric past or the eschatological future, they must necessarily leave the domain of true science (whose measurements can be made only in the present) and enter the realm of faith." http://www.icr.org/bible/tbiatos.htm

"The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action." http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html

Please refrain from comments like, "Christians are mindless sheep.", "You're dumb" (or any other equally stimulating retorts), "There is no evidence proving these." (there is...READ them, and their references.), and "God doesn't exist."

Rather, I would like to see some actual references and thoughts as to how or why these evidences couldn't be true. (personal beliefs won't amount to much in such a format)

A discussion...not an argument, or a condemnation, or a separation of beliefs.

And please note that I do not ONCE reference Christiananswers.net. *laughs* This should make many on this forum ecstatic.



@}--`,-------------

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



And please note that I do not ONCE reference Christiananswers.net. *laughs* This should make many on this forum ecstatic.



Well, some of scientists in your articles are with the Institute for Creation Research, so please explain how you claim that you did not once referance christiananswers.net? http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

"It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss theology, but this author firmly believes that the Bible is the literal and inerrent Word of God, and that a literal interpretation of Genesis allows for the Old-Earth Creationist view. "

Say what, digi? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

According to above article:

"At the same time, there are many others who believe that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, while the Universe as a whole is 10 to 20 billion years old. Although many people in this latter category are Evolutionists (either Theistic or Atheistic), many of them are in fact Old-Earth Creationists who affirm that the world, and its life, was specifically and personally created by God over a period lasting for billions of years. "



[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 07-28-2004).]

hey digital, i read and skimmed through the first link you provided. without glancing at the others (it's real late), i'm curious as to how you feel that it does not adequately refute 'young-earth' creationist assertions? the author was very careful to list and counter as many arguments for a young earth as possible, all while remaining within what he considers christian parameters.

Exactly my point. READ THEM. The authors are Christian...trust me.

I am supporting the fact that most of Creationist's reasons for believing in a young earth are either unfounded, out-dated by new evidence, or simply urban legends.

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

I think you will enjoy them.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-28-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Well, some of scientists in your articles are with the Institute for Creation Research, so please explain how you claim that you did not once referance christiananswers.net? http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

"It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss theology, but this author firmly believes that the Bible is the literal and inerrent Word of God, and that a literal interpretation of Genesis allows for the Old-Earth Creationist view. "

Say what, digi? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

According to above article:

"At the same time, there are many others who believe that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, while the Universe as a whole is 10 to 20 billion years old. Although many people in this latter category are Evolutionists (either Theistic or Atheistic), many of them are in fact Old-Earth Creationists who affirm that the world, and its life, was specifically and personally created by God over a period lasting for billions of years. "



[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 07-28-2004).]

I did not post any links, or use any information from Christiananswers.net. I think that is pretty obvious. Please try and follow the context.

ICR is a completely separate entity from the authors/creators of Christiananswers.net. ICR is a school, full of scientists, philosophers, and theologists alike. I think you will see that the writer's of these papers have been very careful to use deductive reasoning, actual science, and empirical data to come to the assertions that they have.

My point was, everyone seemed to detest Christiananswers.net as a reference point, so I used other, more scientific references.

I think you did not read them all in their entirety, either. You will see my point, once you do.

Hope to hear from you AFTER you have read the articles.

quote:MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf







The article bases itself on samples that should not have Carbon 14 traces, and do. It then extrapolates that to create the outrageous conclusion that it supports the Creationist view of the flood.

What the article deliberately ignores is other samples of Carbon 14 that go contrary to those findings. Moreover, they completely ignore all other forms of dating such as Uranium-238, Uranium-235, Samarium-147 among others.

Moreover they, to uphold the Flood theory,

reach this conclusion:

"To estimate the pre-cataclysm 14C/C ratio we of course require an estimate for the amount of 14C. As a starting point we might assume the total amount was similar to what exists in today’s world. If that were the case, and this 14C were distributed uniformly, the resulting 14C/C ratio would be about 1/100 of today’s level, or about 1 pmc. This follows from the fact that 100 times more carbon in the biosphere would dilute the available 14C and cause the biospheric 14C/C ratio to be 100 times smaller than today."

Which is based on no scientific proof, at least none that is cited. This just shows how "scientific" they really are. They uphold the Carbon dating to a higher degree of scrutiny, while their own theory to much less scrutiny, to the point where they didn't even cite from where they got those numbers.

quote:http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf

This other article, which does deal with Uranium 235 and other radioisotopes reaches a conclusion that these form of dating are unreliable. Which, if taken as true, in no way shape or form proves or supports the theory of the Flood.

quote:"It is obvious, of course, that the Bible is not a scientific textbook in the sense of giving detailed technical descriptions and mathematical formulations of natural phenomena. But this is not adequate reason for questioning the objective accuracy of those numerous portions of Scripture which do deal with natural phenomena and historical events.

It is salutary for anyone dealing with questions of this sort to recognize the essential nature of faith and presuppositions in his reasonings. "Science" (the very meaning of which is knowledge) necessarily can deal only with those things which exist at present. The scientific method involves reproducibility, the study of present natural processes. When men attempt to interpret the events of the prehistoric past or the eschatological future, they must necessarily leave the domain of true science (whose measurements can be made only in the present) and enter the realm of faith." http://www.icr.org/bible/tbiatos.htm



This is a matter of opinion really, and cannot be refuted. Just like me saying that "the article is the crappiest article I ever read" cannot be refuted.

What I can do, is point at, like others here have pointed out, many scientific errors in the bible. Scientific errors which remove any credibility the bible has toward scientific arguments.

quote:"The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action." http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientific caseagains tevolution.html



This one I'll leave to anyone else that wants it. Dark_Magneto had a many articles supporting macro-evolution (with occurrences in viruses).

I'm tired of reading really. So if DM or anyone else has the articles please post them. If this hasn't been "refuted" in a few days, then I'll do it.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-28-2004).]

quote:The article bases itself on samples that should not have Carbon 14 traces, and do. It then extrapolates that to create the outrageous conclusion that it supports the Creationist view of the flood.

What samples should not have Carbon 14 in them ?

It is not an outrageous conclusion, when it is explained by empirical data.

quote:What the article deliberately ignores is other samples of Carbon 14 that go contrary to those findings. Moreover, they completely ignore all other forms of dating such as Uranium-238, Uranium-235, Samarium-147 among others.

That is the very problem with Carbon 14 dating...it is so unstable, and so unreliable, that it should not be used as a means to prove or disprove ANYTHING.

I can post other links that refute the reliability of these other dating methods, if you'd like.

I felt that one form was sufficient. (though nothing is ever sufficient for those that refuse to believe in Creationism, regardless of the evidence presented)

quote:Moreover they, to uphold the Flood theory, reach this conclusion:

"To estimate the pre-cataclysm 14C/C ratio we of course require an estimate for the amount of 14C. As a starting point we might assume the total amount was similar to what exists in today’s world. If that were the case, and this 14C were distributed uniformly, the resulting 14C/C ratio would be about 1/100 of today’s level, or about 1 pmc. This follows from the fact that 100 times more carbon in the biosphere would dilute the available 14C and cause the biospheric 14C/C ratio to be 100 times smaller than today."

Which is based on no scientific proof, at least none that is cited. This just shows how "scientific" they really are. They uphold the Carbon dating to a higher degree of scrutiny, while their own theory to much less scrutiny, to the point where they didn't even cite from where they got those numbers.

Are you a biophysicist ? What about an anthropologist ? A geologist ? Even a chemist ?

If you attempted to simulate the studies and tests that arrived these students to their conclusions, you would understand the pretense under which their opinions originate.

To say that they have no scientific proof only shows that you weren't paying attention to the site. ICR is an institute developed for the sole purpose of the study of Creationism. They offer degrees (accreditted by the state of California) in all of the above-mentioned sciences, among many others.

They have state of the art facilities, and require that their students graduate with the same level of scientific knowledge as that of their non-theological counterparts.

My point is, these fellas know what their talking about. (not that they can’t make mistakes, but that applies to evolutionist’s as well)

The writer, Baumgardner has a PHD…do you ? (seriously…if you do, then I’d be interested to know in what field/area)

I believe the references are listed at the bottom of the .PDF. This is where any and all science can be referenced for citation.

quote: http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf



This other article, which does deal with Uranium 235 and other radioisotopes reaches a conclusion that these form of dating are unreliable. Which, if taken as true, in no way shape or form proves or supports the theory of the Flood.

How does it not ? You are missing the point. This adds to the entire picture that is being drawn (or was drawn, rather), which leads to the determination of facts surrounding the Flood.

It is not simply this one form of evidence that supports the existence of the Flood entirely, it is one of MANY.



quote:"It is obvious, of course, that the Bible is not a scientific textbook in the sense of giving detailed technical descriptions and mathematical formulations of natural phenomena. But this is not adequate reason for questioning the objective accuracy of those numerous portions of Scripture which do deal with natural phenomena and historical events. It is salutary for anyone dealing with questions of this sort to recognize the essential nature of faith and presuppositions in his reasonings. "Science" (the very meaning of which is knowledge) necessarily can deal only with those things which exist at present. The scientific method involves reproducibility, the study of present natural processes. When men attempt to interpret the events of the prehistoric past or the eschatological future, they must necessarily leave the domain of true science (whose measurements can be made only in the present) and enter the realm of faith." http://www.icr.org/bible/tbiatos.htm

This is a matter of opinion really, and cannot be refuted. Just like me saying that "the article is the crappiest article I ever read" cannot be refuted.

What I can do, is point at, like others here have pointed out, many scientific errors in the bible. Scientific errors which remove any credibility the bible has toward scientific arguments.

Please, feel free to start referencing these scientific flaws in the Bible.

That is why I created this forum…I would like input from both sides, so that this may be logically hashed out.

All you have presented so far, are your OPINIONS.

P.S. Why do you “sound” perturbed ?



quote:

"The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action." http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientific caseagains tevolution.html

This one I'll leave to anyone else that wants it. Dark_Magneto had a many articles supporting macro-evolution (with occurrences in viruses).

I'm tired of reading really. So if DM or anyone else has the articles please post them. If this hasn't been "refuted" in a few days, then I'll do it.

I guess I am waiting on Dark_Magneto to prove your point.

By the way, "Carbon is an element that is required for life. All plants and animals contain carbon. Most of the carbon in the world is either Carbon-12 or Carbon-13 (12C or 13C), which are both stable, but a tiny fraction is 14C, which is radioactive, releasing a weak beta particle. The radioactive half-life for this emission is 5,730 years. Since there's very little 13C, we'll ignore it in this discussion of dating." http://www.rae.org/bits23.htm

Correct me if I am wrong, but does this not include all matter ?

In light of this, I do not see how you can argue that the scientist who wrote the article refers to matter that does not contain 14C.

If I am not understanding something, please advise.

"The C-14 dating method is only reliable if the general assumption of the uniformity of nature2 is valid. Uniformity of nature is the belief that present causes solely have operated in the past. Within this general assumption are two particular assumptions:

That fossilized creatures when living had as much C-14 as similar things have today.3

That the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant (i.e., that the rate of decay has not changed in the interval from when the creatures lived to the present day).

There are a number of technical problems involved in C-14 dating:

It requires relatively small effects to change the level of C-14. For example the burning of coal and oil which contain virtually no C-14 has, during the past century, lowered the proportion of C-14 in the atmosphere by an amount equivalent to 400 years. The explosion of hydrogen bombs between 1955 and 1961 increased the amount of C-14 by an amount equivalent to 1500 years.

The fossils are often contaminated by carbon from their surroundings - carbonates, humic acid, etc. Materials recovered from wet earth inevitably have been invaded by water containing carbonates, humic acid and even pitch. All these must be extracted from the sample with acid, alkali and organic solvents, and even after this some degree of contamination is possible.

Chemical and/or biological changes may have been going on in the fossil over the centuries changing its composition. The amount of C-14 in a fossil (for example, 6,000 years old) is a very small part of the total carbon, and contamination can have a big effect. It is instructive to notice that ever since the radioactive methods of dating were introduced, almost 50 years ago, their supporters have manifested great confidence in them. Yet most of the ages determined by the uranium methods prior to 1940 and by the C-14 method prior to 1960 have been discarded because it was concluded that the methods then in use were unsatisfactory.

Even if it be shown that there is a high degree of correlation between independent dating methods this does not in itself prove the age of man on the earth. The appearance of age may be due to the following factors:

God's creation was in equilibrium, hence the appearance of age.4

Conditions have not been uniform on the earth. The record in Genesis 1:6 states that on the second day the waters were divided into two parts, water below the heaven and water above the heaven. The accumulation of water "above the heaven" would form an outer band round the atmosphere. But this does not exist today, therefore it cannot be assumed that the cosmic ray intensity has been constant. Nor can it be assumed that there has been a stable equilibrium condition between atmospheric 14CO2 (Carbon-14 dioxide) and the reservoirs, primarily the oceans. Genesis 7:12; 8:2 state that in the great Noahic flood the heavens were opened for 40 days and presumably the above-the-heaven water returned to the earth. (Vast quantities of water are now stored as ice in the frozen polar regions.) The blanket of water vapour around the earth prior to the flood would be expected to reduce the ionising power of the sun's rays and the amount of C-14 in living things would be less than now.5 If C-14 in living things was less than it is now, then the geologists' assumption of the uniformity of nature and hence the age postulated for fossils on the basis of these dating methods will be erroneous - the original amount of C-14 being smaller than they calculate.6

The rate of decay of C-14 may also have been different under conditions before the Noahic flood." http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/c03carbon-14/carbon14.html

"Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production." (from an evolutionist) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

I believe he is saying that there is no way that Carbon 14 dating can be reliable, due to changing environmental factors.

"I make no mention of carbon 14 in my books for six reasons: First, the carbon 14 dating method measures the time since a living organism has died. Thus, it is useless for measuring anything that has never been alive, such as a rock. Second, compared with many other radiometric elements, carbon 14 decays quickly. It is useless for dating anything older than about 50,000 years. Third, because carbon 14 forms from cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen 14 (and decays back into nitrogen 14 through the release of beta particles, i.e., electrons) the effect of variations in cosmic radiation intensity (caused by altitude, depth below the earth's surface, and astronomical events) can be difficult to calibrate. Fourth, a specimen's contamination by carbon from surrounding soil, water, vegetation, and animal matter can seriously undermine accuracy of tests on a given sample. Fifth, the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning significantly dilutes carbon 14, and researchers have no accurate way to calibrate this dilution factor. Sixth, and perhaps most significant, astronomy provides much simpler, more consistent, and more direct methods for measuring the date for creation.

People without training in science may not understand that any radiometric dating method can only be trusted for samples with ages close to the half-life of the element in question. Carbon 14's half-life is 5,770 years. This means it takes 5,770 years for half of the carbon 14 to decay into nitrogen 14. It takes 11,540 years for three fourths of the carbon 14 to decay, 17,310 years for seven-eighths of the carbon to decay, and 23,080 years for fifteen-sixteenths of the carbon to decay. Thus, the half-life of carbon 14 makes it a useful dating tool only for specimens between about 500 and 25,000 years old. Because of carbon 14's effectiveness range, it has been an excellent tool for giving us accurate dates of ancient Bible manuscripts. These dates have proved invaluable for settling disputes about authorship of various books of the Bible. Likewise, the carbon 14 dating of archeological artifacts has repeatedly vindicated biblical texts against the criticism of skeptics. As with other tools, it proves beneficial if and when it is applied to the right task." http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/carbon14.shtml?main



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-28-2004).]

Nice work finding this stuff. Some of the only proper evidence that I have seen. What I would like to know is why other people resort to distorting data and outright lies to prove the same point.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I did not post any links, or use any information from Christiananswers.net. I think that is pretty obvious. Please try and follow the context.



I think there was some miscommunication on my part, I didn't know christiananswers.net was a real website, I thought it was just a metaphor you were using to represent Christian Thinking in general. Sorry for the ignorance on my part. Also, I've read the articles earlier, I've got to go to work now, but I look forward to discussing them with you later tonight. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Sweet...no worries. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) I look forward to it as well.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Nice work finding this stuff. Some of the only proper evidence that I have seen. What I would like to know is why other people resort to distorting data and outright lies to prove the same point.

Can you expound on your question a bit more ? I don't want to assume that you are either referring to Christians, non-Christians, or any other variation thereof.

Who are these 'other people', and please give examples of how data has been distorted. I will then try to clarify, if necessary.

Also, what point is trying to be proven ?

*smiles*

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-29-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

hey digital, i read and skimmed through the first link you provided. without glancing at the others (it's real late), i'm curious as to how you feel that it does not adequately refute 'young-earth' creationist assertions? the author was very careful to list and counter as many arguments for a young earth as possible, all while remaining within what he considers christian parameters.



His paper DOES adequately refute creationist assertions. I wanted to dispell the misconception that all Christians only use these methods as proof to refute evolutionism.

I agree with the writer of the paper, and proceeded to post more papers that actually offer irrefutable evidence of a young earth. (in my opinion)

I did this as to not waste any time arguing about the 'proofs' that have already been disproved.

Thanks, Eil. Looking forward to your input.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



What samples should not have Carbon 14 in them ?

It is not an outrageous conclusion, when it is explained by empirical data.



If you had read the thing you wouldn't ask me such a question. The whole article based itself on some samples from the Phanerozoic age which shouldn't have Carbon 14 and do. That's their point, that somehow this proves the 'young earth theory'.

Moreover, it is not explained with empirical data, at least its conclusion is not.

quote:That is the very problem with Carbon 14 dating...it is so unstable, and so unreliable, that it should not be used as a means to prove or disprove ANYTHING.

I can post other links that refute the reliability of these other dating methods, if you'd like.

I felt that one form was sufficient. (though nothing is ever sufficient for those that refuse to believe in Creationism, regardless of the evidence presented)



I already acknowledged and said that these particular article didn't deal with those radioisotopes, but the other one did. I don't see even the relevance of bringing this up.

Now, yes you could say they are unreliable. So what? Does that prove the "Yong earth theory". Nope. It just proves these methods are unreliable.

Moreover, these methods being used by them to "show" how the earth is young!

quote:Are you a biophysicist ? What about an anthropologist ? A geologist ? Even a chemist ?

If you attempted to simulate the studies and tests that arrived these students to their conclusions, you would understand the pretense under which their opinions originate.

To say that they have no scientific proof only shows that you weren't paying attention to the site. ICR is an institute developed for the sole purpose of the study of Creationism. They offer degrees (accreditted by the state of California) in all of the above-mentioned sciences, among many others.



Then refute my statement! Your opinion on the site doesn't matter. I don't care.

You either refute my claim that they 'didn't cite enough proof for that assumption' or you stop debating what you are. Show me where they cited proof for this assumption:

"If that were the case, and this 14C were distributed uniformly, the resulting 14C/C ratio would be about 1/100 of today’s level, or about 1 pmc. This follows from the fact that 100 times more carbon in the biosphere would dilute the available 14C and cause the biospheric 14C/C ratio to be 100 times smaller than today."

quote:They have state of the art facilities, and require that their students graduate with the same level of scientific knowledge as that of their non-theological counterparts.

My point is, these fellas know what their talking about. (not that they can’t make mistakes, but that applies to evolutionist’s as well)

The writer, Baumgardner has a PHD…do you ? (seriously…if you do, then I’d be interested to know in what field/area)

I believe the references are listed at the bottom of the .PDF. This is where any and all science can be referenced for citation.



1. How do you know if I have a Ph.D or not?

2. How do you know my background?

3. How is your opinion on the ICR even relevant?



Again, I made a legitimate claim. It is your turn now to disprove it. Not to cite their PhD.s which you don't even know if I have or not.

quote:How does it not ? You are missing the point. This adds to the entire picture that is being drawn (or was drawn, rather), which leads to the determination of facts surrounding the Flood.

It is not simply this one form of evidence that supports the existence of the Flood entirely, it is one of MANY.



I know. It still doesn't support it.

That these methods of dating are not 100% reliable does not in any way support the young earth theory. It just shows these methods are not 100% reliable!

You see, they are using their "un-reliableness" and extrapolating to support the theory that the earth is young. The exact same thing could be done to support that the earth is 100,000,000,000, billion years old! It's not proof or evidence; period.

quote:Please, feel free to start referencing these scientific flaws in the Bible.

That is why I created this forum…I would like input from both sides, so that this may be logically hashed out.

All you have presented so far, are your OPINIONS.

P.S. Why do you “sound” perturbed ?





Look the point is you cannot possibly refute an opinion! That's my point. You cite an article that is just editorial in nature and provides a subjective point of view. That being, that the bible is credible. I can't refute that.

Yes, I offered opinion, and I also offered facts. I'm not speaking out against opinions. I'm just stating the fact that nobody could ever "refute" that. It's an opinion, just like "what color is prettier?".

As for a flaw:

" Kings 7:23 - A circle is made, ten cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. Anyone with a grade nine education knows the problem with that." -- Falcon.

quote:I guess I am waiting on Dark_Magneto to prove your point.

You're waiting for a point that I didn't even make? Don't get snappy and wait. I really don't want to search for this and hopefully DM will provide the sites. If he doesn't, or nobody else does, I garantee you I will reply.

---

quote:Correct me if I am wrong, but does this not include all matter ?

In light of this, I do not see how you can argue that the scientist who wrote the article refers to matter that does not contain 14C.

If I am not understanding something, please advise.



You know what problem I have with this? That I'm arguing with someone that hasn't even read, let alone, understood the argument he/she is making.

Yes, every living thing has C14. But it has a half-life of aprox. 5,000 years. It only works to date things that are aprox. 70,000 years of age. Why? Because C14 does not last any more than ~70k years. If not, there would be no reason to use other isotopes.

Please read the first part if your own article.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-29-2004).]

I have read it, and your replies are nothing more than infantile banter, and I won't be responding to them after this, unless you can come up with some data.

You are either misunderstanding the text honestly (ignorance), or refusing to (on purpose, which is stupidity).

Your posts are personal, against me, as opposed to the data.

Most of the questions I posted were rhetorical in nature.

As far as whether or not you have a PhD is concerned, I DID ASK YOU, and instead of answering the question (one of the few that wasn't rhetorical) you skirted around it by asking how I would know whether you did or not. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) I don't know, and that's why I asked. My point was that you give the false appearance of someone who understands the context of these articles, when you clearly do not.

I was not giving opinions about ICR, they are facts. Go read the website, call the school, do whatever you need to do to verify what I have said. It's moot, and yet another of your childish tactics to deter from the intellectual purpose of this thread.

Stop wasting my time. (I won't allow it to happen again, by not responding)

I also do not believe that the authors were directly using their evidence as proof of a young earth, but rather proof that evolution has too many holes to be plausible, which would lead us to search for the 'truth' elsewhere.

Oh, and one more thing...are you going to start giving the scientific flaws found in the Bible, or not ?

It would be nice if you would live by the standards in which you hold everyone else to.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Nice work finding this stuff. Some of the only proper evidence that I have seen. What I would like to know is why other people resort to distorting data and outright lies to prove the same point.

Nevermind about my earlier post...I think I understand now...

You have to understand that everyone of us is human. Christians makes mistakes too, as well as those CLAIMING to be Christian, who are obviously not.

There are several people on this site that make me cringe every time they post. I can't believe the distorted views they have on Christianity, and God. Their interpretation of the Bible is so off-base that it is impossible to conceive of how they came to the conclusions that they have.

For them, I apologize. It is difficult for me to not correct them at every turn, but if I did I would never be able to respond to those out there that don't believe in God, or try to refute the Bible.

I have to 'bite my tongue' often...it is a saddening prospect to think that these individuals reside under such delusion.

It seems that it is not important for them to research their 'facts', but rather accept them because they 'make sense'. They know nothing about science, or the will of God, yet they try and spread the word of God as though they were some sort of authority.

Jesus tells Christians in the Bible to be learned. Educated in their beliefs, so that they may never be caught without an answer. Not so that they can appear more intelligent, but so that their motives cannot be questioned. To have faith in something is to believe it completely, with reckless abandon. How can you claim to believe in something, when you don't know anything about it ? Not only do you embarass yourself, but those around you, and those you claim to share beliefs with.

Anyway, I'm rambling, and getting off topic. I agree with you, MP.

My apologies. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:You are either misunderstanding the text honestly (ignorance), or refusing to (on purpose, which is stupidity).

Please, in all honesty, show me where I have misunderstood the text. I beg you.

quote:Your posts are personal, against me, as opposed to the data.

Yes, my post included personal aspects. Why?Because you didn't know that Carbon 14 is not supposed to be found in things that are over ~70,000 years old.

Because you started citing their PhDs which is irrelevant.

Because you questioned my claim.

quote:As far as whether or not you have a PhD is concerned, I DID ASK YOU, and instead of answering the question (one of the few that wasn't rhetorical) you skirted around it by asking how I would know whether you did or not. I don't know, and that's why I asked. My point was that you give the false appearance of someone who understands the context of these articles, when you clearly do not.





I didn't answer because it's irrelevant.

I don't wish to be judged by my PhD. or lack of it.

If you think that I don't understand the text then point that out to me. Don't say you're not going to reply back, because that only serves to show how childish you are.

quote:I was not giving opinions about ICR, they are facts. Go read the website, call the school, do whatever you need to do to verify what I have said. It's moot, and yet another of your childish tactics to deter from the intellectual purpose of this thread.

You were giving facts to support a general opinion. An opinion which is irrelevant, because nobody here questioned their degrees or whether or not they are credible. Tell me, just how are their degrees relevant if I never asked for them or questioned them?

quote:I also do not believe that the authors were directly using their evidence as proof of a young earth, but rather proof that evolution has too many holes to be plausible, which would lead us to search for the 'truth' elsewhere

Like it or not that was their conclusion in the original article.

quote:Oh, and one more thing...are you going to start giving the scientific flaws found in the Bible, or not ?

It would be nice if you would live by the standards in which you hold everyone else to.



Another argument that arises from your lack of reading skills. Please for the love of god, read.

Here, I'll quote myself for your benefit:

"As for a flaw:

Kings 7:23 - A circle is made, ten cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. Anyone with a grade nine education knows the problem with that. -- Falcon."



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-29-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

[B] .

Who are these 'other people', and please give examples of how data has been distorted. I will then try to clarify, if necessary.

B]

http://www.youngearth.org/evowontfly.htm

The folloing reason on the site are lies or missrepresentation.

7. They take one true fact about petrafied wood and make it seem like it can only have originated in the great flood. Any landslide flood or volcanic eruption could have prouduced them.

8. They claim thgat trees must be buried rapidly to be petrafied. Wood can last years unprotected, long enough to be buried in several diferent kinds of sedement.

12. The laws of physics as we know them do not apply to the big bang. Alot of dimentions are involved. The existance of some of these dimentions can be proven by an exsperiment showing wave interference of photons even though there are not any other photons to interfere with.

21 to 30 asume that evolution does not work.

31. Only the first specimin of Neaderthal Man was a diseased. They are a sub species of human, not the result of sickness.

45. The sedement in the ocean is swalowed up into the rifts as the techtonic plates colide.

47. Oil field pressure is not high in most instances. Most fields require pumps to exstract oil. When and oil pocket colapses the result is tars sand or oil shale. There are lots of these around the world.

48. The fact that human civilization is only fivethousand years old doe not prove that the world is only five thousand years old.

49. The earth's rotation is slowing down by a thrid of a second every year. Acceleraton does not follow linear curves. The statment implies that you can find the rotation rate in the past by multipling 1/3 by the number of years. This is inacurate over any great lenght of time. The proper calculations involve finding the rate of acceleration of the earth and working back.

50. They don't say how long it takes for a galaxy to spread out. They just say that they do.

Many of these are commonly used arguments. They are either honest mistakes or deliberate acts of deception. I am more inclined to belive that they are honest mistakes, the fact that they continue to be used does not reflect well on the cause the promote. If they are deliberate it means that some people are clinging to scraps and unwilling to admit defeat.

Jack Chick also uses similar tactics. But he aims his propaganda at children.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html (a radioactive argument)

which led to:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm (a second look at Young-Earth arguments)

- An article refuting a similar argument as the Carbon 14 dating article Digital_Saviour cited:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

"The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)"

-Another similar argument posted on another message board:

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&frame=right&th=5a6d63414908a7be&seekm=26913c0b.0403110215.51101553%40posting.googl e.com#link1

- Other errors made by the ICR in the past:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

Just as I promised, evidence for macro-evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

A Refutation to a counter argument posed by a Creationist:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

P.S. Just to prove to you (Digital_Saviour) that Dark_Magneto had the links:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum14/HTML/002833.html

Go to any creationist organization's web site and browse it for a while. You'll find all the standard totally erroneous arguments against evolution -- no transitional fossils, the second law of thermodynamics, macroevolution has never been observed, and so on. But if you search enough, you're also likely to come across something called a "statement of faith," "statement of beliefs" or something of the sort. Virtually all creationist organizations have one, though they're usually tucked away in unobtrusive or hard-to-find locations on the site. Members are required to sign and affirm these statements, which put forward the official position of the organization and list the tenets of its belief. Though the wording varies, the basic message of the statements of faith is always the same -- you must be a Protestant Christian, you must believe that the Bible is inerrant and you must already be convinced that creationism is true.

This in itself is suspicious. No legitimate scientific organization would ever require its members to come to the table with such a preconceived bias, especially not one having to do with one's choice of religion. But it is in specific wording of these statements that the true bias comes out. These pages show in exceedingly clear detail that the creationists subscribe, not to the self-correcting system of science, but to the infallible dogma of fundamentalist religion.

The ICR's "Tenets of Creationism (http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm)"

In their belief statement, the ICR attempts to draw a distinction between "scientific" and "Biblical" creationism, claiming that the former can and should be taught in public schools, and that only the latter is religious. However, this claim is trivially shown to be false by statements such as "The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity."

The hypocrisy in claiming that this is not a religious statement is simply breathtaking. To teach this in public schools would be a constitutionally forbidden endorsement of religion over non-religion, as well as one religion over all others. Christianity is not mentioned by name, but that fact is irrelevant. The ICR's ploy is transparent; anyone who reads their standards will be able to tell beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly which religion is being promoted. "Scientific" creationism does not become any less religious simply because its proponents deliberately avoid mentioning the name of the specific god it is centered around.

Also note that the ICR boasts "a firm commitment to creationism and to full Biblical inerrancy and authority", which makes it rather difficult to argue that they are not biased. What would happen, one wonders, if the inerrant Bible and the physical, empirical evidence do not lead to the same conclusion? This is never addressed, most likely because the ICR never even considered it as a possibility.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 07-29-2004).]

Digital_Savior.

Your first link actually refuted the majority of your remaining links.Also,I am not sure if you noticed the disclaimers on the second and third links you posted..."The statements the authors make and the conclusions they reach do not necessarily represent the positions or the viewpoint of the institutions for which they work nor does a listing of the institutions' name imply that they support this research.

While this does not discredit the author , it also does not add credibility either.

If you are honestly interested in factual information on Radiocarbon 14 and how it is really works and the limits of its use , follow this link:

www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html (http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html)

Gah, every time a debate comes up on the Young vs. Old earth issue, my conclusion of 'Old Earth' becomes more and more solid.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Digital_Savior.

Your first link actually refuted the majority of your remaining links.Also,I am not sure if you noticed the disclaimers on the second and third links you posted..."The statements the authors make and the conclusions they reach do not necessarily represent the positions or the viewpoint of the institutions for which they work nor does a listing of the institutions' name imply that they support this research.

While this does not discredit the author , it also does not add credibility either.

If you are honestly interested in factual information on Radiocarbon 14 and how it is really works and the limits of its use , follow this link:

www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html (http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html)

Yes, I am aware of that, and I address the reasoning behind this a few posts prior to yours.

The author of the website disproving common Creationist misconceptions is a Christian. This was listed as an example that not all Christians are mindless idiots that cling to whatever 'truths' their church's shove down their throats.

Being ignorant about something you wholeheartedly believe in does make for sweet wine, if you catch my drift.

I would be satisfied if ATHEISTS understood exactly why they choose to be atheists, instead of using evolution as a scapegoat.

Even if the theory of evolution became a fact based on empirical data, it would still have been created by God. Either way, everything was created by something.

I believe the disclaimer is listed as a release of liability for all parties mentioned.

I don't find that any reason to lose faith in their credibility.

They are human, and most likely made some errors...*shrugs*

I am honestly interested in factual data, which is why I posted the links I did. I will read yours as well.

Thank you ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

[B] .

Who are these 'other people', and please give examples of how data has been distorted. I will then try to clarify, if necessary.

B]

http://www.youngearth.org/evowontfly.htm

The folloing reason on the site are lies or missrepresentation.

7. They take one true fact about petrafied wood and make it seem like it can only have originated in the great flood. Any landslide flood or volcanic eruption could have prouduced them.

Many of these are commonly used arguments. They are either honest mistakes or deliberate acts of deception. I am more inclined to belive that they are honest mistakes, the fact that they continue to be used does not reflect well on the cause the promote. If they are deliberate it means that some people are clinging to scraps and unwilling to admit defeat.

Jack Chick also uses similar tactics. But he aims his propaganda at children.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.

But the same can be said for those that dedicate their lives to disproving the existence of God.

Science is science. It's guesswork...I try and provide scientific data to quench the thirst of those that think the answers lie within that realm of thinking, however it is ultimately impossible to scientifically prove God.

We just weren't meant to. We can come close, but there must be room for faith.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Even if the theory of evolution became a fact based on empirical data, it would still have been created by God. Either way, everything was created by something.



I couldn't find web text on it or a hyperlink to post, but Daniel Dennett pretty much refutes this "necessity" with an argument that is quite rattling. It's in his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", and the empirical data is mounting, as well as support for the theory.

Not only is the Young Earth argument itself interesting, but the timeline of popular opinion on this very subject is interesting, as well. Science may fall short in proving the earth's age, but the more of it we grasp, the more distinguished the idea of an "old earth" becomes.

John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) had similar theories that strongly parallels most Christian viewpoints about the age of the earth and the implications of an on-high Designer. He wanted to prove that "in the beginning, there was mind". Ex nihilo nihil fit was the repeated maxim and a young earth seemed perfectly plausible, in light of this "given".

Hume's Dialogues consisted of a witty, well-punctuated three way debate on creationism, consciousness and design theory. Strong, strong bias towards a Designer and a young earth.

Darwin came along, and offered another perspective of it, still clinging by a thread to the possibility(!) of a Creator. (Interestingly, his wife was a strong Christian and he doted her with respect). Darwin's scheme was creating Design out of Chaos without the aid of Mind. He touched on algorithims as the "motion" behind evolution, or it's driving force, so to speak. He even conceded to the idea that evolution could not go backwards into infinity, that there had to be some starting point, some sort of push that started it all. Dating the earth as "young" or "old" became quite the hot topic of that time after Origins of Species was first published.

(Robert Wright's The Moral Animal went into great detail about the ideologies present in Darwin's time, when surely the concept of a billion year old earth would seem ludicrous, and carbon dating and dna experiments even more slapstick)

His way of using science (as opposed to religion) to backtrack to our humble beginnings was not only logical, but really the only way (even today) we could take a fair assessment of the age of our earth. Instead of trying to impossibly recreate a "model" that would be accepted by rigid scientific methods of testing, it re-traced from the middle (the present) to the beginning (the starting point), using evolution as it's main step-down ladder. However, Darwin was quick to point out that evolution really worked more like a tree with branches, rather than an up-down ladder. This at least points an investigator in the right horizontal direction, which might be a quicker, simpler way of someday identifying the "creation" necessity (or lack thereof).

Daniel Dennett, in both Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea makes it seem obvious to even an undereducated reader like myself that you can, through science alone, make a template and work backwards through time to prove that the Earth's age is in the billions of years category. He didn't even address the topic directly in either of these books. It just came about as common sense, after thoroughly going over the concept of design space and design tools.

Those were the bulk of my reference materials, up there ^. I tried to keep my personal opinions out of it and considered both points of view. I'd probably be a hell of a lot more enlightened if I understood anything at all about geology or the cosmos.

This has been one of totse's more interesting threads.

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I would be satisfied if ATHEISTS understood exactly why they choose to be atheists, instead of using evolution as a scapegoat.

Although I consider myself agnostic, I tend to lean more to the atheist point of view than the Christian.And I would like to add that I have thought long and hard and I do understand why I hold this point of view.I have not formed my opinions from ignorance.I attended the Baptist Church regularly for many years , and I have read the bible several times (alone and in the company of persons qualified to answer questions concerning scripture).

Logic prevents me from accepting the concept of a being with the ability to create anything he chooses simply by willing it into existance.In my lifetime, I have never encountered anythingto convince me of the existance of anything supernatural.People can convince themselves of almost anything if they put enough effort into it.Ghosts,spirits,angels,demons,etc, are much more likely the embodiment of an overactive imagination than an actual entity. The existance of such an entity cannot be directly observed ,or the effects of such an entity(who logicly is responsible for said effects)are not evident.Therefor, I see no reason to entertain belief in their existance.

Evolution is based on well documented scientific evidence. The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming.While all aspects are not completely understood, it has been proven.

My agnostisism is not affected by whether evolution is or is not real.It is based on the lack of logical evidence to support the existance of God.



Even if the theory of evolution became a fact based on empirical data, it would still have been created by God. Either way, everything was created by something.



I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this assertion. To defend my position , I would like to use a quote from the first link that you posted:



Common Fallacies

......... The first fallacy is claiming that an unexplained mystery supports the creationist view simply because science is not currently able to explain it....



The fact that the universe , along with everything contained therein,does exist,does not necessitate the existance of a creator.At this point in time, we simply don't know the origin of our existance.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

The fact that the universe , along with everything contained therein,does exist,does not necessitate the existance of a creator.

Personification.

It doesn't necessitate a "creator", it necessitates creation. No reason to start positing disembodied spirits with comic book like super powers just yet.

“He's invisible, a walking personification of the Negative” (Ralph Ellison).

Comic book characteristics were the creation of minds that were created by a Creator.

Man is not as great as you would make him out to be.

Man cannot accept that their existence is the result of actual creation. Why ?

Pride.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Man cannot accept that their existence is the result of actual creation.

Actually this is the dominant view, since monotheists are a majority of the population.

You don't hear much from the polytheists anymore.

DS, I think it takes a breaking of the pride to accept atheism, especially if the view leans more towards nihilism. To deny a creator who gives us purpose is to deny pride and accept that humans are of no importance at all.

Word.

And as for this thread:

<A HREF="http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/copying_misinformation.gif">http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/copying_misinformation.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/copying_misinformation.gif" width="90" height="90)</A>

Bump

Don't bump threads. People had lost interest so let it die.

I did it with a purpose. I'm discussing this thread with Digital_Savior in another thread, hence I did not want it to disappear; which happens after a period of time.

MasterPython - I don't believe people lost interest. Heated debates take a lot outta ya ! Needed a break. *laughs*

I still have some things to post here, but now I am going home to "rest". (a five year old, a 7 month old, a husband, two cats, and a dog that still doesn't know how to poo outside !)

Hehehehe

Later, ya'll.

All I have to say is listen to Dr. Kent Hovine(Hovind?) at &lt;a href:"http://www.drdino.com"&gt;www.drdino.com&lt;/a&gt;

Listening to him(mainly his tapes) has been a huge eye opener. You HAVE to listen to the tapes. you HAVE TO!

The problem with Creation Science is that it is not even science. Even courts have ruled that Creation Science is not a suitable theory to be taught in schools, and with some of the crazy shit they teach, that's REALLY surprising.

And it's REALLY surprising that our liberal court system, filled with liberal evolutionists, have deemed Creation Science to not be "real science" at all !

How convenient !

Science is science. It's guesswork, no matter which side of the proverbial fence you sit on.

Nice try, Optimus. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

All I have to say is listen to Dr. Kent Hovine(Hovind?)



<A HREF="http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/hooked_on_phonies.jpg">http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/hooked_on_phonies.jpg" width="90" height="90 (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/hooked_on_phonies.jpg" width="90" height="90)</A>

Kent Hovind is so full of bullshit that even the fundamental creationist website AnswersInGenesis refutes his lies.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And it's REALLY surprising that our liberal court system, filled with liberal evolutionists, have deemed Creation Science to not be "real science" at all !

How convenient !

Science is science. It's guesswork, no matter which side of the proverbial fence you sit on.

Nice try, Optimus. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Digital_Savior, you seem to be a fairly well educated individual.I am curious as to how you are unable to fathom the difference between Creation Science and actual Science.In several of your posts , you have stated that evolution "is just a theory".I would assume that you understand the proper meaning and use of the term Theory in the scientific sense.How can you in good conscience misuse it's meaning to try to prove your point?Do you honestly believe that science is mere guesswork? An enormous amount of research has been done and a tremendous amount of evidence supports the Theory.

Science requires the gathering of evidence.Then a hypothesis is formed to try to explain the evidence.If the hypothesis withstands all falsification, It becomes a Theory. A Theory is as close to being a Fact as is scientificly possible.Science is always open to the possibility, however improbable it may be, that new evidence may disprove the theory.

Creation Science, on the other hand, is Not Falsifiable. There is no way to scientificly test the claims and assumptions put forth by the Creation scientists.If the evidence does not fit into their so called science, they can (and do)just say that "God did it that way".

One question, if you don't mind.Why do Christians (generally speaking, of course) insist on misrepresenting the definition of evolution and the mechanics involved? Christians constantly state that according to evolution , that life came from non living matter, that man came from monkeys,and that the universe was created from nothing in the "big bang". The Theory of Evolution simply states that all creatures share a common ancestry.It does not imply that monkeys evolved into man.It does not even consider the origin of life. Abiogenesis is another theory entirely, as is the big bang theory.



If you intend to refute Science, please attempt to refute actual science.Not a misrepresentation of science.





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-10-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And it's REALLY surprising that our liberal court system, filled with liberal evolutionists, have deemed Creation Science to not be "real science" at all !

How convenient !

Science is science. It's guesswork, no matter which side of the proverbial fence you sit on.

Nice try, Optimus. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

No DS, it is not science to present a guesswork notion with no supporting evidence as a theory; the best 'Creation Science' could be presented as in an unsupported, untestable hypothesis; which I wouldn't mind it being presented as.

previous post:

"Kent Hovind is so full of bullshit that even the fundamental creationist website AnswersInGenesis refutes his lies."

Instead of finding some christians who do not believe what he says(the majority I know do believe), YOU need to refute the evidence for a young earth. PAY ATTENTION HERE also, if you beat him in a debate, I believe he pays out $250,000. If you have concrete proof the refutes his proofs for a young earth, I challenge you to try to win the 250 k.

Kent Hovind offers $250,000 (which may or may not exist) to anyone who can demonstrate evolution (defined as a natural, acausal origin of the universe) to a reasonable doubt (meaning with 100% certainty, allowing for no other possibilities whatsoever) in front of a neutral committee (handpicked by Hovind himself) and according to certain criteria (carefully worded so as to rule out any possibility whatsoever of the challenge ever being met).

Noone has ever met this challenge.

*laughs*

I'd agree that it is, in all probability, slighted.

However, this tactic seems to be a favorite of evolutionists, so why can't Christians use it ?

Not advocating it (nor suggesting that it should be used), on either side, but find it interesting that it is alright for one point of view, and not another.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

If you intend to refute Science, please attempt to refute actual science.Not a misrepresentation of science.

So, this is fake science ?

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

I'll get to the rest of your post when I have 2 hours to spare. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

So, this is fake science ?

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

I'll get to the rest of your post when I have 2 hours to spare. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



D.S.

Actually, it is misrepresentation of real science.While the authors hold accredited degrees, they fail to follow true scientific procedure.They are far too willing to grasp at any shred of possible evidence to support their beliefs.

The AMS method is more accurate than standard radiocarbon14 dating.The size of the sample needed for testing is much smaller and the actual age of the sample can be more accurately estimated .Scientists do not attempt to use the method for samples much older than 50,000 years because the accuracy is questionable due to being unable to differentiate residual carbon14 from background radiation .The authors totally ignore this fact and attribute all radioactive activity to carbon 14.They also fail to cross verify the samples age using other radiometric isotope dating methods.Verification using other methods would prove whether or not the reported carbon 14 was residual or from contamination.

Real science searches for the truth.

Creation scientists tend to pick and choose which parts of the truth fit their idea of science.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-11-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

D.S.

Actually, it is misrepresentation of real science.While the authors hold accredited degrees, they fail to follow true scientific procedure.They are far too willing to grasp at any shred of possible evidence to support their beliefs.

Like Evolutionist dont....LOL!!!!!

Umm, yeah they don't.

Any valid scientific findings have to undergo rigorous peer-review by commitees of professional accredited scientists who get off on debunking other's claims.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Umm, yeah they don't.

Any valid scientific findings have to undergo rigorous peer-review by commitees of professional accredited scientists who get off on debunking other's claims.

Yes they do.

It is convenient that the peers that review these scientific findings all believe in the same thing: evolution.

And there are MANY examples of "scientific findings" by atheists that have been discreditted, YEARS after these findings have been made into "fact".

As we learn more and more about ourselves and our environment, often times our science becomes obsolete.

You feel like this is something solid to rely on ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



It is convenient that the peers that review these scientific findings all believe in the same thing: evolution.



Boo hoo,

Maybe scientists belive in evolution because they know that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. The whole young earth thing is based on the asumption that if you add up the ages of people in the Bible you can exstrapolate the date and time of of creation, it is October 23 4004 BC at 9:00 am. This was disproved before Darwin published the Origin of Speicies by geologists. If you read The Map that Changed the World by Simon Winchester you can learn about the history of geology. And you also hear all the funny storries creationist tell to exsplain how the world works. The stories from the past make about as much sense as the modern ones.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yes they do.

It is convenient that the peers that review these scientific findings all believe in the same thing: evolution.

And there are MANY examples of "scientific findings" by atheists that have been discreditted, YEARS after these findings have been made into "fact".

As we learn more and more about ourselves and our environment, often times our science becomes obsolete.

You feel like this is something solid to rely on ?



Now that's not necessarily true. Einstein may be the greatest physicist of our time, and he was a strong Jew. What DM was saying is that other scientists take pleasure in proving their collegues wrong, they enjoy debunking each other more than creationists do.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

Now that's not necessarily true. Einstein may be the greatest physicist of our time, and he was a strong Jew.

Ethnic jew maybe.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Einstein

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yes they do.

It is convenient that the peers that review these scientific findings all believe in the same thing: evolution.

You've just uncovered thousands of years of bias!

How could people ignore the fact that those reviwing evidence for the existence of oxygen... actually believed in the existence of oxygen! Those fucking cheaters!



http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



quote:

And there are MANY examples of "scientific findings" by atheists that have been discreditted, YEARS after these findings have been made into "fact".

Nobody here claimed otherwise. Arguments are refuted constantly, and are then replaced by the "winner". That's how science works.

quote:

As we learn more and more about ourselves and our environment, often times our science becomes obsolete.

Ridiculous. How do we "learn about ourselves and our enviorment"? With Science!