|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science Disproves Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3627 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
molbiogirl, will you marry me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 46. Evolving Planets? Pahu, You swiped your entire post (Message 49) from this website. You are a plagiarist and a liar. You need to go. Now. Hold up. He said he was getting this stuff from Walt Brown, and that he'd be posting examples of his "dating methods" now and again, so this isn't plagiarism, since we have been given a reference. See posts #1 and #11 on this thread. Nor is it lying if he's been taken in by Walt Brown: he would then be, not a liar, but a dupe. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Doc,
The liar ref is from earlier in the thread. Message 35:
anglagard: Since you made this assertion, I'm sure it would be no problem to show us what 'facts' Tremaine 'discovered' which 'disprove' evolution in the appropriate thread. Pahu: molbiogirl did this for us in message 19. I did no such thing. And this numbskull is pasting verbatim from Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Without quote boxes. Without providing the proper URLs. Since when is it kosher to just swipe unattributed material from a creo site? And add absolutely nothing else to the discussion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Aw. Archie. You sugar lump. You made my night.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: We have a winner! The sad thing is that buzz will reuse that same argument in a month.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: That's a standard YEC position. Why would you argue that modern dating methods are inaccurate if you're not a YEC and instead think the earth is ancient? You also believe Biblical arguments belong in science threads, another standard YEC position. What your position really is is confused! Looking at Message 1 I'd say that dating arguments are on-topic, but Biblical arguments about prophecy are off-topic, and sophistry about supposed scientific bias and bullying in the face of overt creationist shenanigans and when over 60% of the American public thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old is not only off-topic but ludicrous. The title says, "Science Disproves Evolution," by which the author really meant "Science Disproves an Ancient Earth." If you have scientific evidence against an ancient earth then let's hear it, but no more Bible talk, please. 1. I never said a peep about the age of the world/earth/planet in message 59 reference dating methods. My position for the whole 4 plus years at EvC has been that the age of the planet is not knowable as per the Biblical model. What my statements regarding dating referred to was evolution of animals and mankind. My position has always been that the 24 hour day was not determined/established until day five of creation when the animals and man was created. I'm surprised that by now you haven't known that to be the case regarding my hypothesis. 2. Biblical arguments only belong in science when they apply to the topic. After all certain aspects of observable archeology, history, geology, cosmology, biology etc relative to origins involve the Biblical record. EvC involves the Bible so if you don't want it involved, you have no EvC debate in science. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Buz,
I'm glad your position is clear to you. The reason I call it confused is that your "hypothesis" offers no self-consistent explanation or any real-world supporting evidence, and it is really only your own idiosyncratic interpretation of Genesis. Please leave Biblical arguments out of science threads. Science is not based upon revelatory evidence. In the science threads you should offer real-world evidence for your position.
Buzsaw writes: EvC involves the Bible so if you don't want it involved, you have no EvC debate in science. EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim that creationism is every bit as much legitimate science as evolution, supported by the evidence and deserving of representation in science classrooms. If your hypothesis is supported by revelation then that's great for your religion, but it isn't science. In the science forums your arguments must be based upon real-world evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim that creationism is every bit as much legitimate science as evolution, supported by the evidence and deserving of representation in science classrooms. If your hypothesis is supported by revelation then that's great for your religion, but it isn't science. In the science forums your arguments must be based upon real-world evidence. In Buz's defense, I don't think he is just talking about revelation, but instead thinks that there is actual physical evidence for some of his positions. I think his Biblical references would be fine if he also presented the actual evidence for the assertion so it could be examined. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pahu Member (Idle past 5955 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first observed this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.6-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume.
Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young. For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100! Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence. Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young”possibly less than 10,000 years old. Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
CE110: Moon Receding
quote: In other words this is STILL a false claim. Try to find something that has not already been refuted eh? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Pahu, could you post something in your own words? You're the one debating here, not Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. As the Forum Guidelines state:
Also, the 2nd half of your post is an example duplicate of the 2nd half of your Message 49. The Forum Guidelines state:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The second half of his post is simply a copy and paste from this page
Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Pahu, you really need to understand that if you find it on one of the Creationist sites, the folk here have already seen it and refuted it. The only way you are going to make an impression here is to come up with something new that you can also support with reason, logic and reality.
Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Evolution can be surprisingly fast, and probably all the diversity that we see in the species today can probably take place in a few tens of millions of years. The longer times for evolution are not because it is necessary, but because we see in the fossil record that it actually took hundreds of millions of years to produce the diversity we see today, not because it is necessary. It simply turns out that in real life, the morphology of a species is static for a long period of time. If it wasn't for these periods of stasis, evolution would proceed quite quickly. The age of the earth is an observational fact, not a requirement in which to fit the evolution of the species. "The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness." Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
Heh, heh... Problem is that these measure something other than the age of the earth! Tell us, Pahu, exactly what age do each of these techniques tell you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024