Creation vs. Evolution II

[redfern]

Amino acids can be made in a school science lab, because they are not anything more than any other semi-complex material. The simplest living organism has an extremely exponential amount of complexity in relevance.

The issue I was addressing is not related to whether or not amino acids can be created here or there. I was simply trying (vainly) to get RR to see how ludicrous his “breaking down faster than building up” claim was.

 

[Crucible]

All 'dating' is good for is showing what thing is older than the other thing.
Other that, it's just rank presupposition which doesn't actually show how old something is- it's the bias tied in evolutionary thought, and nothing else.

 

[MichaelCadry]

And logic and science tell us that's baloney (or more accurately, an ancient interpretation of processes they could not possibly comprehend)

Dear Greg J,

Of course it sounds like baloney, but that doesn't make it any less true. Just because you don't know that real truth doesn't make 6days wrong. He is definitely more right about it all than you. Science is for crap as far as some things go. It's just man trying to explain how we got here without any help from God. They never went to Church often enough and just don't know. Just because you think 6days point of view is not correct doesn't make you right. When Jesus returns, He can tell you to your face. And he'll most likely say, "Depart from me; for you never knew me." Lots of luck then. You're going to have one helluva ride.

Michael

 

[6days]

If you insist -
What does science say about creating an adult woman from a man’s rib?
What does science say about a river turning from water into hemoglobin?
What does science says about a snake having the necessary anatomy to create human speech?
What does science say about living for several days in the intestines of a big fish?
What does science say about transforming living flesh and blood into sodium chloride?
What does science say about sticks transforming into snakes, and vice versa?
Based on your criteria, that thing you label as “God’s Word” must be fiction.

This has been answered before but once again...It seems you don't know what science is.
Science is the search for knowledge and truth. Science is the study of the world around us using observation and experiment. Contrary to the belief of some evolutionists..... Science is NOT excluding a hypothesis of an intelligent designer, when the evidence seems to point in that direction. There are things in the past that can't be observed, and can't be proved by experiment. For example an atheist believes that life came from non life...or perhaps that nothing created everything. Likewise with supernatural events in the Bible...we can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past.

However, we can see if evidence supports our beliefs. For example the first 5 words of the Bible are "In the beginning, God created"... So, we can look for evidence if there really was a beginning. We can look for evidence of an Intelligent Designer. We can look for evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, and inerrant. Science is a body of knowledge and as such is always consistent with, and helps proclaim the truth of God's Word.

 

[redfern]

I asked:

is M31 <the Andromeda Galaxy> actually 3 million LY distant from us?

6days:

Yes.

Ok, then about how long have the “M31” photons that arrive at my telescope tonight been travelling?

6days poses questions back to me:

First question - Is the edge of the visible / observable universe about 46 billion LY from us?

I have heard figures about like that, and have no reason to question them.

Second question- What is the one way speed of light? (Is it a convention?)

Oh dear. Do you really think you are qualified to mount a defense of Lisle’s anisotropy synchrony convention? You admit you are not actually a scientist, and yet you want to discuss a question in cosmology that is based on both special and general relativity? Hey, I’m game if you are, bring it on.

 

[Jose Fly]

we can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past.

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of even the basics of science. We scientifically investigate "one time events in the past" all the time. Maybe you've heard of fields of science called "archaeology" and "forensics"?

 

[6days]

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of even the basics of science. We scientifically investigate "one time events in the past" all the time. Maybe you've heard of fields of science called "archaeology" and "forensics"?

Archaeology and forensics are historical sciences. We observe evidence in the present then make conclusions about the past. Without a time machine...that's how science is done.

 

[6days]

Do you really think you are qualified to mount a defense of Lisle’s anisotropy synchrony convention? You admit you are not actually a scientist, and yet you want to discuss a question in cosmology that is based on both special and general relativity? Hey, I’m game if you are, bring it on.

I'm not defending Lisle's hypothesis. But I did ask if the one way speed of light is a convention. That MAY be part of the answer in how God created so that man could see stars which had been created two days earlier. The answer MAY lie in the speed God spread the heavens.

 

[Jose Fly]

Archaeology and forensics are historical sciences. We observe evidence in the present then make conclusions about the past. Without a time machine...that's how science is done.

You're all over the map and can't even keep a consistent position from one post to the next.

"Observe evidence in the present then make conclusions about the past" is a process that's also utilized in evolutionary biology (and the kicker being that we then take those conclusions and use them to generate new useful results, e.g., genetic function).

So by the exact same standard that you just stated is "how science is done", you must also conclude that evolutionary biology is science. But then, we know you can't do that because you operate according to AiG's intellectually dishonest framework, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record".

It's entertaining watching all the ways you try and stick to this inherently dishonest framework.

 

[redfern]

Archaeology and forensics are historical sciences. We observe evidence in the present then make conclusions about the past. Without a time machine...that's how science is done.

In comparison, the Old Testament accounts are just ancient creation legends handed down from scientifically ignorant nomads – accounts of which not a single original copy is known to exist. Like you say, we observe evidence in the present – like the billions of ladies that are alive, and not a single one has ever been seen to turn into a pillar of salt. So, like you say, we make conclusions about the past – such as how likely it is that an ancient oral story that violates several of the most fundamental laws of science is true – as opposed to admitting that the salt-lady story is typical of the types of embellishments and errors often seen in the handing-down of popular legends that have no factual basis. That’s how science is done.

 

[6days]

"Observe evidence in the present then make conclusions about the past" is a process that's also utilized in evolutionary biology.

True.... So, you are agreeing with me, "we can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past."?
Evolutionism is a belief about the past that does not contribute to operational science. Often, the wrong conclusions has hindered science.

 

[6days]

In comparison, the Old Testament accounts are just ancient creation legends handed down from scientifically ignorant nomads – accounts of which not a single original copy is known to exist.

Examining ancient manuscripts and determining authenticity, and historical accuracy is a type of historical science. Evidence helps confirm the inerrancy of God's Word.

 

[redfern]

Examining ancient manuscripts and determining authenticity, and historical accuracy is a type of historical science. Evidence helps confirm the inerrancy of God's Word.

Does the salt-lady story violate scientific laws?

 

[6days]

Does the salt-lady story violate scientific laws?

Do you think you will get a different answer every time? Here we go again...
We can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past.
It seems you don't know what science is.
Science is the search for knowledge and truth. Science is the study of the world around us using observation and experiment. Contrary to the belief of some evolutionists..... Science is NOT excluding a hypothesis of an intelligent designer, when the evidence seems to point in that direction. There are things in the past that can't be observed, and can't be proved by experiment. For example an atheist believes that life came from non life...or perhaps that nothing created everything. Likewise with supernatural events in the Bible...we can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past.

However, we can see if evidence supports our beliefs. For example the first 5 words of the Bible are "In the beginning, God created"... So, we can look for evidence if there really was a beginning. We can look for evidence of an Intelligent Designer. We can look for evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, and inerrant. Science is a body of knowledge and as such is always consistent with, and helps proclaim the truth of God's Word

 

[Greg Jennings]

Wow Greg.... You seem to be angry?
I posted this recently as an example....

Richarad Leakey*discovered*modern looking skull KNM-ER1470*in 1972.* He declared the skull was 2.9MYO.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

Geologist (paleocologist) *Kay Behrensmeyer was there with Leakey. "She discovered a cluster of stone tools eroding out of a volcanic tuff, an ash layer from an ancient eruption that filled a small paleochannel. The site was named in her honor and the layer was named the Kay Behrensmeyer Site Tuff or KBS Tuff. .....The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer

In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. *of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon)*However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct. *

Because Leaky found the skull after the the tuff had been dated at more than 212 million years old, Fitch and Miller had to come up with new a different number. Using a different method, they now reported the Tuff was 2.61 million years old.

NEXT...
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other scientists had found other fossils in the area and used different dating methods, but came up with numbers in the acceptable range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v247/n5442/abs/247520a0.html
(Pigs and elephant... 1.3 to 4.5MY)
In 1974, paleomagnetism (Article published in Nature) seemed to give a bullseye to the dating, in the area saying it was between 2.7 and 3.0MY.

HOWEVER.... Skull 1470 appeared too modern to be 2.9 MYO (Leakeys preferred date) according to current evolutionary stories.* In 1975 a younger date of 1.82 MY was given
*on the strata.* The current date given to skull 1470, assigned by consensus, is 1.9 MY. *
https://www.researchgate.net/public...in_the_Koobi_Fora_Formation_East_Rudolf_Kenya


One thing in common was the various studies was mentioning the difficulty in obtaining good samples. IOW... A good sample is one that*provides a date consistent*with evolutionary expectations.* IOW.... Circular reasoning is used to obtain a date that fits with the just so stories.

Numerous other examples can be given where dates are adjusted up or down to fit the story. *J.M.Bowler in Journal of Human Evolution; in a article interestingly titled "REDATING Australias oldest Human Remains" says "For this complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence".
And..... Its sort of sad...sort of funny, that evolutionists can read a statement like that and not burst out laughing.

So let me get this straight, when you say:

Are you aware that dates from the lab is sometimes ignored, and dates are simply assigned to fit evolutionary beliefs?

You actually mean that this one time, a paleontologist misidentified a 2 million year old skull as a 3 million year old skull?

So what?! He made a 1 million year mistake that was corrected by peer review (you know, that thing that your insane creation theory can't hold up against). You imply that A) that happens all the time and B) that somehow a 2 million year old skull supports your completely insane 6000 year old Earth (both obviously false)

Only to morons such as yourself could 2 million = 6000

 

[Greg Jennings]

Do you think you will get a different answer every time? Here we go again...
We can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past.
It seems you don't know what science is.
Science is the search for knowledge and truth. Science is the study of the world around us using observation and experiment. Contrary to the belief of some evolutionists..... Science is NOT excluding a hypothesis of an intelligent designer, when the evidence seems to point in that direction. There are things in the past that can't be observed, and can't be proved by experiment. For example an atheist believes that life came from non life...or perhaps that nothing created everything. Likewise with supernatural events in the Bible...we can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past.

However, we can see if evidence supports our beliefs. For example the first 5 words of the Bible are "In the beginning, God created"... So, we can look for evidence if there really was a beginning. We can look for evidence of an Intelligent Designer. We can look for evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, and inerrant. Science is a body of knowledge and as such is always consistent with, and helps proclaim the truth of God's Word

Care to explain how exactly a human transforms into a pillar of salt? Never mind if it ever happened or not, just explain to me how it could possibly happen

 

[Greg Jennings]

Why?

Because it is still happening on the ocean floor today with the exact same microorganisms, genius. We can measure the rates of accumulation anywhere we want, so we know how fast and thick this stuff packs together.

Any more questions as to why your creation myth is completely ridiculous, and you're foolish for buying into it so blindly?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear Greg J,

Of course it sounds like baloney, but that doesn't make it any less true. Just because you don't know that real truth doesn't make 6days wrong. He is definitely more right about it all than you. Science is for crap as far as some things go. It's just man trying to explain how we got here without any help from God. They never went to Church often enough and just don't know. Just because you think 6days point of view is not correct doesn't make you right. When Jesus returns, He can tell you to your face. And he'll most likely say, "Depart from me; for you never knew me." Lots of luck then. You're going to have one helluva ride.

Michael

Oh Michael. If only you could know how wrong you are about some things. Not all. But certainly some

 

[6days]

You actually mean that this one time, a paleontologist misidentified a 2 million year old skull as a 3 million year old skull?

No, sorry you didn't read correctly, Greg. The skull was eventually assigned a date of about 2 million years, in an area previously dated at 212 -230 million years.

 

[6days]

We can measure the rates of accumulation anywhere we want, so we know how fast and thick this stuff packs together.

ahhhh...so, the the key to the past is uniformitarinism...except when it isn't??
EX. "Canyon Carved in Just Three Days in Texas Flood: Insight into Ancient Flood Events on Earth and Mars” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100620155748.htm