Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Evidence Museums...
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 117 (106559)
05-08-2004 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by almeyda
05-08-2004 7:59 AM


EVOLUTIONISTS WOULD NEVER ACCEPT SOMETHING FROM A CREATIONIST
I disproved this already, remember? A lot of the geology that supports the evolutionary model was developed in the 1800's by creationists. We accept many of their conclusions to this day. If you wanted I'm sure you could dig up a list of scientific advances from purported creationists, all accepted by evolutionists.
Shouting at me isn't going to change the fact that it's only creationists who reject evidence because it doesn't fit their conclusions. Not everybody's like you, Almeyda. Some of us make up our minds based on evidence, not on what we want to believe.
If the evidence fitted overwhelmingly why is it not fact?
It is a fact. It's also a theory.
That evolution happened - that allele frequencies changed over time to result in the species we see today - is a fact. It's absolutely true.
The model that describes how that happened is a theory.
It's like gravity. If you drop a stone from a building, it hits the ground. That's absolute fact. But the math - the model - that describes the changing position of the stone over time is a theory.
Evolution is both fact and theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 7:59 AM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 77 of 117 (106560)
05-08-2004 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by almeyda
05-08-2004 6:43 AM


Re: ...
almeyda,
Creationist lies again. When will you guys see AiG for what it really is?
1.According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years
This has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory!
If a comet has a typical age of 10 kiloyears then your own evidence falsifies a 6,000 year old earth.
Comets do not have the same elliptical orbits for very long. The large gas giants affect the orbit of these objects considerably. All a comet is, is an object that is currently making a close pass relative to the sun. Long period comets can become short period comets via a close pass to a planet.
In short, the existence of a short period comet argues for the relatively short existence of that short period phase of a comet. It is an invalid inference to assume a short age of the universe, because the same inference argues for a large age of the universe inferred by the existence of long period comets. You can't have it both ways.
2.The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.
http://www.geocities.com/...naveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm
A mish mash of errors derived from the extrapolation of incomplete, or deliberately omitted data.
"It is apparent that the earth's magnetic field is not "decaying", and that it routinely fluctuates and even occasionally reverses itself completely. The only explanation that the creationists can invoke to deal with these fluctuations and reversals is to turn to their religious sources, and opine that these reversals were a result of the actions of God in bringing about Noah's Flood. The creationist "magnetic field decay" hypothesis is simply not capable of giving us any scientific estimate of the earth's age."
3.All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth’s atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years.21 This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years
Helium is lost from the atmosphere over time. It is the next lightest element next to hydrogen.
Secondly, how does this support a 6,000 year old earth? What positive correlation do you make that suggests the earth is this young from the data presented? It seems this is an excuse to reject an old earth, not to accept a 6,000 year old one.
The argument that helium retention in older rocks presents a problem to an old earth is flawed, also. Since you haven't presented anything that shows a 6,000 year old earth, there is nothing to rebut, so I'll content myself to linking to to an excellent discussion of this very issue.
http://EvC Forum: New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay
3.Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.
Again, nothing that correlates to a 6,000 year old earth.
As someone else pointed out, there were a BILLION carrier pigeons in existence at any one time, there are NO fossils of them.
4.According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely
Again nothing that supports a 6,000 year old earth.
The request was that you support biblical kinds & a 6,000 year old earth (not "ten thousand", because that contradicts the biblical geneaology rather than supports it, an error of 67%) evidentially.
Care to try again?
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 05-08-2004 07:31 AM

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 6:43 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 10:49 AM mark24 has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 78 of 117 (106566)
05-08-2004 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by almeyda
05-08-2004 4:30 AM


Re: ...
God tells us that his words are pure & perfect.
Er, that is your peculiar [b]interpretation{/b of what is written in the Bible.
You seem to be worshiping the Bible more than God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 4:30 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 10:44 AM JonF has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 79 of 117 (106569)
05-08-2004 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by almeyda
05-08-2004 12:44 AM


Is the Bible ALL that God told us?
First, if you believe that GOD created the Universe, then the Bible is not the only record he left us. There is also....The Universe.
Even a glance at the one record that GOD left us that has not been created, changed, modified, revised, translated, and interpreted by MEN shows that what GOD left us as a record does not agree with the Bible that was written by MEN.
I trust the record GOD left more than I trust the Bible that Men wrote.
Second, you ask,
How can you call yourself a Christian if you dont believe everything God told you?
That is a good question. Start a thread on it and I would be glad to answer but it's not germain to this thread.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 12:44 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 10:44 AM jar has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 117 (106573)
05-08-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by JonF
05-08-2004 9:30 AM


Re: ...
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" 1 Thessalonians 2:13

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 9:30 AM JonF has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 117 (106574)
05-08-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by jar
05-08-2004 10:08 AM


Re: Is the Bible ALL that God told us?
Ive been banned from proposing any topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 10:08 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by AdminNosy, posted 05-08-2004 10:59 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 117 (106575)
05-08-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by mark24
05-08-2004 8:30 AM


Re: ...
If there is no record of man before 4-5000yrs where did the notion come from that they existed? Can you say evolutionary framework anyone?..It is relevant because it shows that man began showing signs of his existence coincidently when the Bible says life began. True?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by mark24, posted 05-08-2004 8:30 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 05-08-2004 11:06 AM almeyda has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 83 of 117 (106576)
05-08-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by almeyda
05-08-2004 10:44 AM


Banned
Ive been banned from proposing any topics.
Not that I'm aware of but I may be wrong. Did you try to post it in the Proposed New Topics forum? That is the only place that anyone is allowed to create a new topic.
If it is a reasonably formed topic then it will be moved to the appropriate forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 10:44 AM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 84 of 117 (106578)
05-08-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by almeyda
05-08-2004 10:49 AM


Re: ...
almeyda,
If there is no record of man before 4-5000yrs where did the notion come from that they existed?
From the record of man that is older than 4-5000 years old, obviously. Note, not records by man. If we date the earliest civilisation at, say 5,000 years old, then we must accept that deposits below those are older still.
But again 4-5000 years ago isn't 6,000 years ago, is it? In any case, it's a bit like saying because the records that show my house as being ~100 years old must mean that's how old the earth is.
Can you say evolutionary framework anyone?..It is relevant because it shows that man began showing signs of his existence coincidently when the Bible says life began. True?
Well it would, wouldn't it? If civilisation kicked off at that time, having had the time in the Holocene to meet the prerequisites (population size, shared advancements, writing, agriculture, advent of metals etc) then clearly when writing appeared, so would records of religion. As evidenced by MANY religions coinciding with civilisation. Again, the time records appeared is evidence of the time records first appeared, nothing more.
For the third time, please present evidence, of a 6,000 year old earth & biblical kinds. An attempted refutation of an old earth is not the same thing.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 05-08-2004 10:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 10:49 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 11:41 AM mark24 has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 117 (106584)
05-08-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mark24
05-08-2004 11:06 AM


Re: ...
Maybe youve missed a point here. Human bones are marked by Evolutionists at tremendous ages. Like that note said 100,000 or less. Why are they lying about the bones for? Maybe its because of an interpretation, About man evolving. Thats there view but is it consistant with the evidence? Now Creationists must have a better time as it fits there framework beautifully. Also the missing link is still missing. And judging by the "evidence" scientist discover that mans always been smart. With plenty of evidence that they were alot smarter than today,lol. Yes its true...More proof that God made us full programmed..So if you arent convinced Evolution have a flaw here than maybe at least you can acknowledge what i mean by "interpreting the facts" and using these facts to fit your framework.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 05-08-2004 11:06 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by mark24, posted 05-08-2004 11:53 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 87 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 11:57 AM almeyda has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 86 of 117 (106586)
05-08-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by almeyda
05-08-2004 11:41 AM


Re: ...
almeyda,
Maybe youve missed a point here. Human bones are marked by Evolutionists at tremendous ages. Like that note said 100,000 or less. Why are they lying about the bones for?
That's a serious charge. Back up the claim that evolutionists are perpetrating a deliberate misconception or retract.
The ages are attributed to dating methods that cross corroborate, there is no lie, there is only denial on your part. Why would different dating methods that possess different areas of potential error match so closely unless they were broadly correct?
Maybe its because of an interpretation, About man evolving. Thats there view but is it consistant with the evidence?
Yes, dating methods that possess different areas of potential error match closely. So, yes, it is consistent with the evidence. What I do note however, is that you still haven't presented ANYTHING that leads us to conclude the earth is 6,000 years old. So, looking at the evidence, the dates are consistent with evolution & not biblical creation. I have evidence, you don't.
Now Creationists must have a better time as it fits there framework beautifully.
What does? You have presented NOTHING, nothing, nothing that would lead anyone to conclude that the earth is 6,000 years old!!!!! Good grief.
FOR THE FOURTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EARTH IS 6,000 YEARS OLD. AND ALSO THAT CREATED KINDS, WERE.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 11:41 AM almeyda has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 87 of 117 (106587)
05-08-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by almeyda
05-08-2004 11:41 AM


Another unsupported claim
Your introduction of new, unsupported claims is really tiresome ...
Human bones are marked by Evolutionists at tremendous ages. Like that note said 100,000 or less. Why are they lying about the bones for?
Lying is a serious charge. According the The Merriam-Webster dictionary the primary meaning of "lie" is "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". Provide evidence that "evolutionists" have made untrue statements about human bones, and prove that those statements were made with intent to deceive, or retract your claim.
P.S. Piltdown man doesn't count. That was never an inmportant part of the record of human evolution, and the lies were unmasked ... by evolutionists. Nebraska man and Java man and Heidelberg man don't count either, they weren't lied about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 11:41 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 1:18 PM JonF has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 117 (106605)
05-08-2004 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by JonF
05-08-2004 11:57 AM


Re: Another unsupported claim
Page not found – Evolution-Facts - Heres some information on what i mean by Evolutionists interpreting facts to fit there framwork.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-09-2004 01:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 11:57 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by mark24, posted 05-08-2004 1:47 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 90 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 2:35 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 91 by AdminNosy, posted 05-08-2004 2:39 PM almeyda has replied
 Message 93 by mark24, posted 05-08-2004 9:09 PM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 89 of 117 (106612)
05-08-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by almeyda
05-08-2004 1:18 PM


Re: Another unsupported claim
Almeyda,
Bare, unsupported links are against forum rules.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 05-08-2004 12:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 1:18 PM almeyda has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 90 of 117 (106618)
05-08-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by almeyda
05-08-2004 1:18 PM


Re: Another unsupported claim
That link contains a collection of unsupported assertions, flat-out lies, and mined quotes. Remember that I instructed you about mined quotes in another thread? But even if everything there were true, it's all irrelevant.
Provide evidence that "evolutionists" have made untrue statements about human bones, and prove that those statements were made with intent to deceive, or retract your claim. That means quoting statements, demonstrating that the persons making the statements were "evolutionists", demonstrating that the statements are untrue, and demonstrating that they were made with intent to deceive. You haven't even tried to do this, and the page to which you linked has nothing to do with this process.
Of course, you won't do it, since you have never expended the effort to think; all you do is blindly parrot the liars you have chosen to follow. Feh.
This message has been edited by JonF, 05-08-2004 01:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 1:18 PM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 3:17 PM JonF has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024