Creation vs. Evolution II

[ok doser]

I acknowledge your lack of answers.

Stuart (or Stuu, as it is spelled)

aka, Mr. Pidd

 

[gcthomas]

Nope... not true.

You haven't thought this through. We know the 2-way speed of light is too slow for the time scales you have in mind, so you need the one-way speed of light towards the Earth to be muuuuch higher than the outward speed. So the universe would have to be set up with the inward and outward speeds set for a precific location, or else we would see a very different universe as we looked in different directions.

You MUST have the Earth in a special location (effectively, the centre) if you want to have your hypothetical one-way speed of light save your claim to be "scientific". And, since relativity has the one-way speed the same as the two-way speed, then you'll be needing some very novel physics to achieve what you want. Physics that is equivalent to, but different from, SR.

And, surprise, surprise, you don't. Nothing is changed.

 

[Greg Jennings]

He also did not mention butterflies nor the Canada goose, although both are included in the Hebrew word 'owph'.

Yes, he actually sort of did. When mentioning types of birds, he crosses that group off the list, including geese. Insects are insignificant and you could forgive someone for leaving them out, but a 30 foot wingspanned dinosaur? That's like talking about WWII without mentioning Germany.

He very obviously didn't know what the heck a flying reptile was because he'd never seen one, once more putting a hole into your favored myth.


So here we are: either your assertion that "science is always consistent with God's word" is wrong, or your assertion that the biblical authors were reliable relayers of information is wrong. I'm leaning towards the former, myself

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear GregJ,

Adam did not write the book of Genesis. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible's Old Testament. Moses wrote them down with a lot of God's help. So he wrote what God said happened. God had talked to Moses before that and Moses even saw God's back parts, but not His face. God was quite able to tell Moses word for word what happened from Creation to Moses' time. No Adam did not pen the Book of Genesis. Come on.

Also, Greg, God used Chemistry to change Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. He turns other people's bodies into ashes and the dust of the Earth. He can do things you wouldn't fathom because you don't know Him. That's why you don't understand a lot of stuff. If He could make creatures and man out of the ground, He certainly could do whatever needs to be done to His Creations in an instant.

Why is it that you cling to your atheism, knowing that the great majority of people believe in God and Jesus, and the Bible. The Bible is the best-selling Book of all time. There must be a reason. You think that just because you are in the minority, that makes you right. I'm not saying it's based on a popularity contest, but instead a good sense belief by a lot of diverse people. God called on the ones who believe in Him, and the ones whom He hasn't called are the one's who don't believe in Him because they don't want to be bothered with God's rules or commandments. That is what's going on. You think that God treats His Creations unfairly. Well, you don't know the half of what is going on. You speak about Him and you've never read half of the Bible. So you don't know Him, but you like to speak against Him. That is blasphemy of God and that's not good at all. Jesus said that if you can't handle all of the commandments, at least keep the first two, namely, love God with all of your heart, and mind, and soul. And, love each other as God loves us. The rest of the commandments will fall into place at one time or another. Just keep two rules. Is that so hard?

Praise God!!

Michael

Michael......what if I told you that I'm not an atheist

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear Greg J.,

Now you want us to believe in Uranium/Lead radiometric dating, and other forms of radiometric dating using other elements. I don't trust your dating for a moment, just like you all swore to us up and down that C-14 dating was absolutely correct. You are wrong about man being Evolved instead of believing that God created him. You are dead wrong and yet you want me to believe your story about dating methods? Tell it to some gullible people instead.

Warmest Regards,

Michael

I guess all of the scientists alive are gullible idiots.

Michael, C-14 dating (as well as ALL radiometric methods) are 99.5% foolproof as long as proper procedure is followed, which it is. For there are issues with contamination, the sample is thrown out.

What you don't seem to understand is that these methods each have a time limitation: C-14 is only a reliable year up to 75,000 years because that's when the amount measurable gets too small to supply reliable information. For U-Pb, the range is 4+ billion years. If you don't trust science, you're only cheating yourself here.


If this makes you unconfortable then just ignore it. Ignorance is bliss, as they say

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear Greg J,

Just because God only did it once doesn't mean it never happened.

Michael

And just because you claim he did something that we have no evidence of doesn't mean that he did

 

[Greg Jennings]

That is incorrect. They are mutually exclusive.

Umm.....ok. Hope you're ok with your religion dying because your kids know better than to deny what science shows to be factual just because you don't like it.

OR

You can simply accept what is and fit it into your creation model. That is how science works anyway: you take new information and update old ideas with it. Your chosen firm of Christianity prefers instead to decide on an answer before enough data is available, then stubbornly cling to that conclusion in the face of new discoveries and revelations.

Static things die. You have to adapt

 

[Greg Jennings]

They are exclusive. Evolutionism says man evolved from 'monkeys', and monkeys came from molecules... and molecules came from nothing.

You butchered that and skipped about a trillion steps. What else is new

God says, In the beginning He created everything in six days. He created woman from mans rib. She is not a result of pond slime.

Adam is the result of dust. Why is dust better than pond slime? At least pond slime has organic potential

 

[Greg Jennings]

Would you like to give us a list of flying creeping things that have four feet, while you are at it?

Stuart

6days will see this as proof of dragons

 

[musterion]

Umm.....ok. Hope you're ok with your religion dying because your kids know better than to deny what science shows to be factual just because you don't like it.

You assume much you cannot know.

OR

You can simply accept what is and fit it into your creation model. That is how science works anyway: you take new information and update old ideas with it. Your chosen firm of Christianity prefers instead to decide on an answer before enough data is available, then stubbornly cling to that conclusion in the face of new discoveries and revelations.

Static things die. You have to adapt

You will perish if you do not repent.

 

[ok doser]

Would you like to give us a list of flying creeping things that have four feet, while you are at it?

Stuart

 

[Hedshaker]

Michael......what if I told you that I'm not an atheist

Don't know about Michael but you sound too rational to me to buy the utter nonsense that is theism. But then, very little on this forum can be described as rational I guess.

 

[6days]

You haven't thought this through. We know the 2-way speed of light is too slow for the time scales you have in mind, so you need the one-way speed of light*towards*the Earth to be*muuuuch*higher than the outward speed. So the universe would have to be set up with the inward and outward speeds set for a precific location, or else we would see a very different universe as we looked in different directions.

You might be correct... I don't know. What I suggested is that Einsteins idea of the one way speed of light may possibly be part of the answer in how God created stars in such a way that Adam could see stars created two days previous. It may also have something to do with the speed God spread the heavens. There are people much brighter than me who agree with that...and people much brighter such as yourself who disagree.*

You MUST have the Earth in a special location (effectively, the centre) if you want to have your hypothetical one-way speed of light save your claim to be "scientific"

We may not be the center but we certainly are in a very special place in the Milky Way. (Oops...that is moving goal posts from the point you made).

But.....it seems your argument of "no center" is partially based on the belief in "no creator". *I'm sure you have seen many contradictory models of where we are in the universe...and even arguments as to how close we are to the center of our own solar system. Or, 'we revolve around a black hole', or 'there are no black holes'. As Stephen Hawkins seems to admit, models of how the universe started and how it appears now is based on atheism. (He suggests if you believe in the Big bang, you give credence to belief in God. And, that is what drives beliefs in multiverse).

 

[6days]

C-14 is only a reliable year up to 75,000 years

Evolutionists accept the results...except when it contradicts their worldview. When the results are unfavorable, they are dismissed as contaminated, or as an anomaly, or as an outlier, or as a poor sample.

(Moses)**very obviously didn't know what the heck a flying reptile was because he'd never seen one...*

You could be correct about that Greg. Archaeopteryx (and others) may have been hunted to extinction before Moses wrote Leviticus. But these extinct animals do help show us evidence of great design...and sudden appearance.*

 

[KingdomRose]

Actually..... Until recent times most people looked at the world around us and seen the universe as evidence of creation. Even some atheists admitted that evidence from the universe and DNA seemed to point to a super intellect. And, they looked at the layers in the earth as evidence of the global flood.
Re. radiometric dating..... Are you aware that dates from the lab is sometimes ignored, and dates are simply assigned to fit evolutionary beliefs? Are you aware of how C14 dating is consistent with God's Word? And are you aware there are many (Although a small percentage) of geologists, geneticists, physicists, atrophysicists, microbiologists, astronomers etc who say the evidence from science best fits the Biblical model and a young universe?

No. I am aware that many scientists say that evidence from science fits the Biblical model of the sequence of animal and human life appearing on the earth, but responsible Science never says that the earth is young. I would like your references for that statement by scientists.

As I have explained, and you appear to agree, the Bible, when taken IN CONTEXT, does not always say that 24-hour days are necessary to understand a "day." Joshua marched around Jericho so many times from sun up to sun down (not cognizant of 24-hour days, but only the movement of the sun), which to US would approximately coincide with 24 hours. In THAT context we could accept the 24-hour idea. But in Genesis the context strongly indicates that the "days" were not 24-hours in length.

 

[Jonahdog]

Evolutionists accept the results...except when it contradicts their worldview. When the results are unfavorable, they are dismissed as contaminated, or as an anomaly, or as an outlier, or as a poor sample. You could be correct about that Greg. Archaeopteryx (and others) may have been hunted to extinction before Moses wrote Leviticus. But these extinct animals do help show us evidence of great design...and sudden appearance.*

Your characterization as "unfavorable" shows your bias.
If you were a scientist and 90% of the C-14 samples showed an age of 25,000 years, but several showed an age much younger and several much older what are your choices?
1. all C-14 tests are invalid
2. statistically the age of the samples is about 25,000 years and the "outliers" are the result of sample error or are contamination.
Which one would you choose?

 

[Stuu]

Evolutionists accept the results...except when it contradicts their worldview.

From Answers in Genesis:

"It’s important that we allow God’s written record of history, the Bible, to guide our thinking about the past—this includes our understanding of the age of the Earth/universe and the age of fossils."

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

Don't know about Michael but you sound too rational to me to buy the utter nonsense that is theism. But then, very little on this forum can be described as rational I guess.

I'm open-minded. I'm not willing to discount any possibility of a creator, be that God or something else

 

[Greg Jennings]

Evolutionists accept the results...except when it contradicts their worldview. When the results are unfavorable, they are dismissed as contaminated, or as an anomaly, or as an outlier, or as a poor sample.

This is a bold statement, but you need a course in chemistry - specifically in regards to alpha and beta particles and radioisotopic breakdown more than anyone I've ever met. You just don't even have the foggiest idea of how radiometric dating works, or why certain isotopes like C-14 can't be used past a certain point. Is your head just so deep in the sand that you can't even bother to learn how radiometric isotopes break down?

You could be correct about that Greg. Archaeopteryx (and others) may have been hunted to extinction before Moses wrote Leviticus. But these extinct animals do help show us evidence of great design...and sudden appearance.*

Archaeopteryx is essentially a tiny bird with teeth and half claws. That could certainly go unnoticed by a biblical author.
But a pterosaur with a 40 foot wingspan (many different species of pterosaur had 20+ foot wingspans) is literally an airplane. You can't miss that. They didn't even resemble birds: they lacked feathers, could grow to an enormous size, and had bat-like wings with digits. When mentioning things that fly, that would be the FIRST thing on anyone's list, and certainly wouldn't not be left out altogether.

You're telling me that biblical authors just forgot about these tens of species of monstrous flying animals when compiling their owph list?

 

[Greg Jennings]

You assume much you cannot know.

In this particular case, not really. Do you think Christianity would still be among the two biggest religions if it still insisted that the Sun orbits the Earth?

The church learned from their mistake with Galileo and accepted that science proved Earth was not at the center of the universe (or even solar system), then simply fit in into their biblical model.

You will perish if you do not repent.

Oh well in that case, you're right. Evolution is phony because I want to get to heaven!

What a sad, fearful existence you must live