Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 2:41 AM
349 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 346 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,341 Year: 23,947/21,208 Month: 1,912/2,468 Week: 5/416 Day: 5/24 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
?????
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 136 (33746)
03-06-2003 10:05 AM


With "half lifes" and other chemicals, we have a pretty acurate way of dating. And yes it is very accurate though people have been saying how carbon dating isn't good. It is. Well back to my question, How do you explain the age of the dinosaurs? according to the bible the earth isn't near a million years of age much more a couple billion.
Just a question...
?????
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:23 AM ????? has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Kenny Johnson, posted 04-22-2011 11:36 AM ????? has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Chuck77, posted 06-06-2011 1:23 AM ????? has not yet responded
 Message 95 by Mazzy, posted 06-13-2011 3:03 PM ????? has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12528
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2 of 136 (33761)
03-06-2003 11:51 AM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.
  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 3 of 136 (36930)
04-14-2003 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ?????
03-06-2003 10:05 AM


carbon dating...
Carbon Dating Doesnt work well. As a creation scientist, let me explain. I'd like to explain here, but please refer to the posted message back in the forum (I want a lot of people to read it, so I posted it in the forum for more people to see).

As for dinosaurs--they were around only a few thousand years ago. Let me explain: it was 6115 years ago, give or take about three to five years (I know this because Abraham from the Bible was born 2166 years ago, and all you have to do is add up the ages of ALL the people from Adam to Abraham, which are all listed in the Bible's book of Genesis). Then about 4500 years ago there was a flood (you know which one, right?) Anyway, contrary to what many creationists believe, the flood DID NOT kill the dinosaurs (the Bible says that Noah took ALL the living creatures onto the ark). Anyway, the dinosaurs died out slowly in the years following the flood--because they were the biggest animals among the others, and since the flood killed off most of the vegetation on the earth, the largest animals began to die off by lack of food. Within a few years of the flood, the rest of the animals began eating the vegetation that began, after living off the large animals that had died. Anyway, do you have a Bible at you house? If so, look up Job 40:15-24 for a Bible passage that describes a dinosaur "behemoth is Hebrew for 'excellent beast'" Well, the word 'dinosaur' was not a word until the year 1841, (up until then, they were called dragons). Yes, the Bible mentions dragons and beasts dozens of times. In 1611 the Chinese emperor appointed the job position of "royal dragon feeder" indicating that the Chinese actually had dragons to feed! Beowulf is the legend of a European warrior who was famous for dying while fighting a great dragon. Gilgamesh is a Mid-East legend involving the sleighing of a dragon. Marco Polo (the real explorer) returned from China in the 1600's, saying that the Chinese emperor was using live dragons in his parades! There are over 11,000 eye-witness accounts of the Loch Ness Monster--some are fraud, but if you show a model of a plesiosaur (an aquatic dinosaur) they will tell you that that was EXACTLY what they saw! There are over 10,000 accounts of dinosaurs and dragons being seen and told about in legend, spanning from Native America to China, to Europe, to Africa. In the swamp of central Africa there are STILL eye-witness accounts of living dinosaurs! The Ceolocanth was thought to be a fish that was part-dinosaur and was extinct for millions of years, but then they discovered that it's still alive in the Indian Ocean. At the Grand Canyon and In Utah caves there are numerous ancient drawings of dinosaurs--and they are very detailed and precise...... trust me, the evidence is VERY extensive that dinosaurs were around recently, and were living with humans since the dawn of time (6115 years ago).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ?????, posted 03-06-2003 10:05 AM ????? has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:25 AM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2003 11:46 AM booboocruise has responded

booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 136 (36931)
04-14-2003 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:23 AM


Re: carbon dating...
Sorry, I meant Abraham lived 2166 BC, not years ago... (my mistake)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:23 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8799
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 5 of 136 (36978)
04-14-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:23 AM


There oughta be a prize
For the most rediculous posts in the shortest period of time.
quote:
Anyway, the dinosaurs died out slowly in the years following the flood--because they were the biggest animals among the others, and since the flood killed off most of the vegetation on the earth, the largest animals began to die off by lack of food

Oh, and why did the dinosaurs who were small die? And the elephants (bigger than many dinosaurs) not die?

quote:
the rest of the animals began eating the vegetation that began, after living off the large animals that had died.

So the elephants survived by being temporarily carnivorous?

quote:
The Ceolocanth was thought to be a fish that was part-dinosaur and was extinct for millions of years,

LOL LOL LOL LOL -- part dinosaur!!!

quote:
At the Grand Canyon and In Utah caves there are numerous ancient drawings of dinosaurs--and they are very detailed and precise

Now that's very interesting! Of course, since you credibility is resting on a solid foundation of part dinosaur fish you'll have to post some very good references for this. :-)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:23 AM booboocruise has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 04-14-2003 12:54 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 7 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 1:04 PM NosyNed has responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 2491 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 136 (36981)
04-14-2003 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
04-14-2003 11:46 AM


Re: There oughta be a prize
The Ceolocanth was thought to be a fish that was part-dinosaur and was extinct for millions of years,

LOL LOL LOL LOL -- part dinosaur!!!

Not to mention being extinct for millions of years as well !! LOL

Maybe it was THOUGHT to be extinct, or maybe God decided to make a new one after millions of years!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2003 11:46 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 7 of 136 (36982)
04-14-2003 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
04-14-2003 11:46 AM


Re: There oughta be a prize
Sure, by the way, the Ceolocanth, which I studied in high-school science, was thought to have had part-fins and part-arms (the fins were bulkier and tougher than normal, so the evolutionists saw it as a missing link). So, the ceolocanth, because it lived with dinosaurs AND seen as an anatomical 'missing link' THEY view it as a missing link.

As for the cave art:

visit these sites for articles concerning dinosaur cave art:

www.drdino.com -- (creation science evangelism)

www.icr.org

www.projectcreation.org


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2003 11:46 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2003 1:54 PM booboocruise has responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8799
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 8 of 136 (36991)
04-14-2003 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 1:04 PM


Dinosaurs
You said the Coelocanth was part dinosaur, is that what you studied in school?
The Coelocanth was never considered as a missing link. It is similar to the type of fish that show a transition from fish to amphibians but that transition happened more than 100 million years earlier.

It's odd that you don't have any archeological references for this "art". Could you supply some trustworthy references?

Dr. Dino is a site which supports a pretend offer a $250,000 prize but misrepresents what it is offering. And makes statments like "Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 (The evolutionists had little else to offer!). " And puts forth the idea that Archeopteryx is a hoax on nothing more than speculation.

The ICR has this on their site:
"but there is also firm evidence that evolution never could take place. The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.
"
That is bunk and they have had many years to know it. My conclusion is that they are deliberately misleading.

And the last one uses the decaying magnetic field as evidence for a young earth. They have had time to know that his is junk.

You'll have to supply reliable references.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 1:04 PM booboocruise has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 4:05 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

booboocruise
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 9 of 136 (37599)
04-22-2003 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
04-14-2003 1:54 PM


Re: Dinosaurs
That depends on your definition of reliable.
I have read many hundreds of anti-Hovind remarks, and they ALL either make personal attacks at HIM (unnecessary) or they make propositions and hypotheses that go against him and claim that Hovind lied. Honestly, if you had actual, irrefutable, empirical PROOF for evolution, Hovind would pay up.

I have spoken to him personally a little on that, and he has had only a handful of people approach him with their "proof" for evolution. Fossils, radiometric dating, and the geologic strata would not hold up in a court of law as PROOF for evolution--consider the OPEN-MINDED creationist to be the Jury that will decide whether or not substantial evidence exists for evolution.

G. K. Chesterton said: "The evolutionists seem to know everythin about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."

Isaac Newton said: "In absence of any other proof, the human thumb alone would convince me of God's existence."

Consider those two statements. The thumb is of remarkable design that allows us to pick things up easily, (it would have been much harder to type this comment if I had not thumbs). If we evolved by chance, how would "evolution" know that we would be in need of a thumb millions of years down the road? It seems to me that everything around us--plants, brains, eyes, ears, taste buds, cats, dogs, books, electricity, sunlight, and even the belief in God--is all evidence that there must be a God. After all, a nationwide pole shows that 7% of people in the US are actual atheists, and 47% believe the earth to be created within the last 10 thousand years.
Sources:

Comfort, Ray. "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists."

Dept. of Education

Dept. of Health and Human Resources


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2003 1:54 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2003 4:18 PM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 04-22-2003 4:19 PM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 04-22-2003 4:49 PM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2003 5:05 PM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 04-22-2003 5:41 PM booboocruise has responded
 Message 23 by truthlover, posted 04-24-2003 12:58 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 136 (37601)
04-22-2003 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 4:05 PM


Re: Dinosaurs
Honestly, if you had actual, irrefutable, empirical PROOF for evolution, Hovind would pay up.

Would he? I don't believe he has the money. 250,000 is a lot of money. And anyway, the fact that Hovind hasn't paid his prize doesn't mean there's no proof. He could just be a liar, for instance.

Anyway, he's making his wager with the full knowledge that science can never "prove" anything absolutely. The conclusions of science are always tentative. That's why science is able to create better theories in the face of new evidence. No religion I know keeps such an open mind.

Fossils, radiometric dating, and the geologic strata would not hold up in a court of law as PROOF for evolution--consider the OPEN-MINDED creationist to be the Jury that will decide whether or not substantial evidence exists for evolution.

In the face of things like the O.J. Simpson trial and other miscarriages of justice, do you really think a court of law is the place to test scientific reality? If so you must put a great deal of trust in lawyers as honest, truthful individuals.

If we evolved by chance, how would "evolution" know that we would be in need of a thumb millions of years down the road?

do you think that ancient man didn't use his thumbs? Why do you say "millions of years down the road"? When the fifth digit migrated down closer to our wrists it would have had immediate functionality. Thumbs are immediately useful for tool-using animals, as we are. Other animals (like pandas) that grasp things also have thumb-like protrusions. I've seen housecats with thumbs they can't use. (well, they look like thumbs to me.)

Better yet, since the only function you've postulated for the thumb is to use a keyboard: why do primates have thumbs? They don't have keyboards. Why did your god give them thumbs? (They have thumbs on their feet, too. Why don't we?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 4:05 PM booboocruise has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5288
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 136 (37602)
04-22-2003 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 4:05 PM


Re: Dinosaurs
and 47% believe the earth to be created within the last 10 thousand years.

That is only a very sad comment on just how crappy we have allowed our educational system to become. About the same percentage of the American public don't know that the Earth orbits the Sun once a year.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 4:05 PM booboocruise has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 12 of 136 (37606)
04-22-2003 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 4:05 PM


Re: Dinosaurs
Booboo writes:

I have read many hundreds of anti-Hovind remarks, and they ALL either make personal attacks at HIM (unnecessary) or they make propositions and hypotheses that go against him and claim that Hovind lied. Honestly, if you had actual, irrefutable, empirical PROOF for evolution, Hovind would pay up.

The value of the challenge is that it exists. It persuades people like you that his claims must be true because he has put his money where his mouth is. In reality he trusts that his evasions will not become broadly public, though they are readily enough available on the Internet (for instance, see http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/challenge.html for an analysis of the challenge, and links to the accounts of six individuals who have attempted (and failed) to get Hovind to accept their challenge).

Fossils, radiometric dating, and the geologic strata would not hold up in a court of law as PROOF for evolution--consider the OPEN-MINDED creationist to be the Jury that will decide whether or not substantial evidence exists for evolution.

Scientific views become accepted by convincing the preponderance of scientists qualified to have an opinion, not by being examined in a court of law. As has already been pointed out to you, theories are not proven and can never be proven because of the principle of tentativity. Theories must always remain open to modification or replacement in light of new knowledge or improved understanding.

As you will gradually learn, Hovind is interested in faith and salvation, not science. He understands the art of persuasion very well and science not at all. Even other Creationist organizations reject Hovind's science, AIG, for example (http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/aig_debunk.html).

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 4:05 PM booboocruise has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 13 of 136 (37607)
04-22-2003 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 4:05 PM


Re: Kent Hovind
Well here's some criticism of Kent Hovind - from creationists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

Here's an extract :

"When an attempted critique of this AiG article appeared on Kent Hovindís Web site, AiG was somewhat surprised (and disappointed) to note that it frequently and significantly misrepresents and/or misunderstands the statements and positions made in our carefully researched document."

Here is what talk.origins has to say about Hovinds offer - with an explanation of why it should be considered fraudulent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

Here is a letter from someone who tried for Hovinds challenge
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_bogus_challenge.htm

And another person who tried wrote this :
http://www.geocities.com/odonate/hovind.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 4:05 PM booboocruise has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 136 (37610)
04-22-2003 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 4:05 PM


"I have read many hundreds of anti-Hovind remarks, and they ALL either make personal attacks at HIM (unnecessary) or they make propositions and hypotheses that go against him and claim that Hovind lied."
--I don't think he lied, he's just a bit arrogant about himself with all the yelling and cheering coming from his credulous fellows. But I also think that the biggest problem with Hovind is that he just doesn't understand science.

This is old, but I think you could use it: http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/Hovind.htm

"Honestly, if you had actual, irrefutable, empirical PROOF for evolution, Hovind would pay up."
--His problem is that there is no such thing as proof in scientific conclusions for the mechanics or happening of any historical event.

"Consider those two statements. The thumb is of remarkable design that allows us to pick things up easily, (it would have been much harder to type this comment if I had not thumbs). If we evolved by chance, how would "evolution" know that we would be in need of a thumb millions of years down the road?"
--Wow, you have impressed me. You must have read quite a bit on natural selection and evolutionary theory.

-------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 4:05 PM booboocruise has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 12:34 AM TrueCreation has responded

booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 136 (37636)
04-23-2003 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
04-22-2003 5:41 PM


I do not doubt...
Seriously, I don't doubt that Dr. Hovind has research of his own that would disagree with many other creationists. (that's part of the problem--if all the public creationists like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, John Morris, Dr. Gentry, Brian Young, Vance Ferrell, Ray Comfort, Bill Sardi, Dr. Gish, and Dr. Comninellis settled their minor differences and agreed to combine their ministries to make one supreme creation science movement then they might be much more affective).
On the other hand, I trust the research of Hovind's that remains consistent with the Bible and with other creationists (that would make it much more compelling for me to believe). And there is plenty of it (I've seen all 15 hours of Hovind's seminars and he has an abundance of research consistent with the majority of creationists listed above.)
Well, Let's get back to the main topic...
For you creationists out there: do you think that the creation scientists listed above should form a creation movement (combine) and be more effective? I realize it's not likely, but that should at least be discussed.

In Christ,
Booboo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 04-22-2003 5:41 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 04-23-2003 5:05 AM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 04-23-2003 4:58 PM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Joralex, posted 04-23-2003 8:09 PM booboocruise has not yet responded

1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017