Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

6days once told me that if the Bible said that the moon was made of cheese then he would have to believe it because it's in the Bible.

That is close to what I said.....I told you that if God's Word told us that the moon was made out of cheese... it would be. God's Word is inerrant. We know Him through His Word.

Noah's flood myth is just as difficult to comprehend.

The flood account is quite simple. Its easy to understand, and supported by evidence.

 

[6days]

You have that backwards, evolution is a fact

Caino..... You are a nice guy but a bit clueless when you say something so goofy as that.
Like most evolutionists you use vague terms to try sell an unscientific belief system.

 

[6days]

how do evolutionist or secularist geniuses explain science theories about origins which deliberately exclude God?

They are unwilling to follow evidence where ever it might lead... Willing to believe the ridiculous rather than follow evidence that might allow a divine foot in the door.

 

[redfern]

Great... We agree. Distance and time are two different things! That is what I stated to begin with. Perhaps you do need that primer course you mention?

How long it takes to drive any distance depends on many factors. Eg.. How many times I had to stop while the cop wrote out my speeding ticket.

I should have picked up earlier, based on your silliness about the moon’s orbit, that I should not expect any pretense to actually understanding physics on your part. This exchange traces back to earlier when you seemed adamant that astronomers who are discussing their ideas about the past are either creationists or evolutionists. I have been privy to observe a couple of situations in which astronomers have disagreed over the meaning of some observations dealing with far distant astronomical events. Not one hint of creationism or evolution entered into their discussions.

I suspect you are a bit miffed about being exposed as a scientific nincompoop as regards the moon issue, and you saw this time-distance charade as a chance to get even. Consequently, if I see that you post credible pertinent scientific information, I may respond. But otherwise I prefer to limit my interaction to those with at least a semblance of adult conduct.

 

[6days]

I should warn you, a while ago on this thread 6Days mentioned book after book from creationist websites (including this one) and bit one of them turned out to be a textbook promoting Piltdown Man. I suggest that you check the books first, as creationist sites are often economical with the actuatilé.
Incidentally, I claimed that Piltdown Man wasn't widely accepted, so to refute this you need to find a popular textbook.

GC... I'm assuming you forgot. The other option would be you are dishonest.

Over the next day or two, I will remind you of previous posts which contradicted you before...and now.

The journal Nature was still promoting Piltdown as authentic in 1950. New Evidence on the Antiquity of Piltdown Man Oakley P-165 wrote: The results of the fluorine test have considerably increased the probability that the [Piltdown] mandible and cranium represent the same creature. The relatively late date indicated by the summary of evidence suggests moreover that Piltdown man, far from being an early primitive type, may have been a late specialized hominid which evolved in comparative isolation. In this case the peculiarities of the mandible and the excessive thickness of the cranium might well be interpreted as secondary or gerontic developments"

 

[redfern]

Those are assumptions. He is not required to assume the truth of the evolutionary history of the planet.

If you are going to critique an idea you disagree with, you have to start with the assumptions that idea is based on, and either show those assumptions are wrong, or that they lead to a wrong conclusion. Otherwise – strawman. Brown totally ignored any possibility of significant changes in earth land mass configurations.

 

[6days]

I suspect you are a bit miffed about being exposed as a scientific nincompoop as regards the moon issue, and you saw this time-distance charade as a chance to get even. Consequently, if I see that you post credible pertinent scientific information, I may respond. But otherwise I prefer to limit my interaction to those with at least a semblance of adult conduct.

Haha... Thanks for the smiles.
Distance and time chat we were having had very little, or nothing to do with the moon. You seem convinced that light years was a measurement of time....It is not. A light year is a measure of distance.

 

[marke]

Yes, it is for me. Many people believe things in the Bible because they are in the Bible not because they sound true. 6days once told me that if the Bible said that the moon was made of cheese then he would have to believe it because it's in the Bible. Noah's flood myth is just as difficult to comprehend.

Most fossil preservation requires sudden burial by extensive amounts of sediment. Most fossils on earth were buried by ocean water deposited sediments filled with both land and sea creature remains. This is massive support for the massive flood of Noah's day.

 

[marke]

I believe that when the Hebrew priest rewrote the Bible in Babylon they attempted to trace their bloodlines back to Adam. Being unable to do so they decided to expand a local flood legend to drown the whole earth in its wickedness in order to fill the gap.

What are you trying to say, that ancient Hebrew priests traced their ancestry back to monkeys created in the image of God? What do secularist geniuses think about the origin of life and matter? Did God create the universe with an intelligent plan and mighty power, or do people think nothing created life and matter from nothing and without intelligence and a plan?

 

[marke]

No, not even Esau. Man hates so he assumes God hates. Man gets jealous so he assumes God gets jealous.

God said He hated Esau (Romans 9:13). Did He tell you He did not mean what He said?

 

[redfern]

Haha... Thanks for the smiles.
Distance and time chat we were having had very little, or nothing to do with the moon. You seem convinced that light years was a measurement of time....It is not. A light year is a measure of distance.

As if I need counseling on what the meaning of lightyear from someone who can’t figure out that there is a relationship between driving speed and distance and time.

 

[6days]

Piltdown man was never widely accepted and was relatively quickly challenged and rejected.

You were shown that was false before GC, yet you repeat it. I showed you that Nature was still using Piltdown as an evidence of evolutionism many years later. Some evolutionists said Piltdown proved Darwins theory!!

Also you were shown a quote admitting the hoax was widely accepted re: Piltdown Man
"More than five hundred articles and memoirs were written about the Piltdown finds before the hoax was exposed; these were all wasted effort. Likewise articles in encyclopedias and sections in text books and popular books of science were simply wrong. It should be recognized that an immense amount of derivative work is based upon a relatively small amount of original finds. For many years the Piltdown finds were a significant percentage of the fossils which were used to reconstruct human ancestry."

Over next day or two, I will post text from textbooks.

 

[gcthomas]

Piltdown Man:

For forty years, this very sapient Piltdown Man inhabited a branch of the tree of human evolution, featured in professional articles and books, in newspaper reports, and even in biology textbooks read by high school students.

http://www2.clarku.edu/~piltdown/Preface&gratitude.html

Please name a text book that was in common use. Or even a textbook that was actually in use in schools.

 

[gcthomas]

This is from the Columbia Encyclopedia, (first edition 1935, current edition 1956), Columbia University Press, Morningside Heights, New York:

"man, primitive, or early man. The Piltdown, Galley Hill and Swanscombe fossils discovered (1888-1935) in England in early Pleistocene strata seem remarkably modern in several respects, though Piltdown was found in association with eoliths, the crudest human artifacts known... Piltdown lacked the massive brow ridges..."


Evolutionists are not shy to present their flimsy and even phony scientific evidences as settled scientific facts if they can get away with it.

That's pathetic. You claim that Piltdown Man was widely taught and imply that is truth was important to the science of evolution, and the only textbook anyone mentions turns out not to mention the fraud.

When called out no one apologises. Oh no. You present an encyclopaedia as evidence. Hardly a school text book. Poor effort.

 

[gcthomas]

Why are researchers who report evidence inconsistent with evolutionist story tales not heard? You tell me. Take the Piltdown hoax, for example. Charles Dawson and conspirators fabricated the Piltdown Man around 1910. Their supposed 'find' was heralded around the world and showcased for nearly 50 years with many people never questioning its authenticity. However, the rare human remains in the Cattedown caves nearby had been discovered more than 20 years earlier and there was barely a peep out of the scientific world driving the false science narrative so widely craved by the masse.

What was the problem with Cattedown? The human remains there were reported to be from 10,000 years to 140,000 years old, and that was much too old for evolutionists to make use of the find. More than 120 years after the important find, we still await any research findings from studying the remains, and researchers still mostly avoid the evidence uncovered there. That fact was clearly highlighted in a series of front page articles in the Plymouth Herald in April, 2007.

Why do we never hear from researchers who present evidence that conflicts evolutionist dogma? You should be able to figure that out, since the truth is so simple a schoolkid can see it.

Piltdown was questioned almost immediately, rejected fairly soon, with ongoing evidence sought to firmly disprove it's provenance.

It is just not true to claim that it wasn't challenged - a self serving fabrication. Even a cursory look at the history shows serious criticisms from the beginning.

 

[Caino]

Most fossil preservation requires sudden burial by extensive amounts of sediment. Most fossils on earth were buried by ocean water deposited sediments filled with both land and sea creature remains. This is massive support for the massive flood of Noah's day.

That's true, we have many layers of fossils that were preserved by many huge floods over millions and millions of years. We have fossils that were from life that once lived on one continent, were fossilized and then the continents broke apart over millions of years. The YEC's want there to be one young earth, one flood, one Holy book. The facts of the earth and the layers of ancient history concealed within it are completely at odds with what the Hebrews wrote.

 

[Caino]

What are you trying to say, that ancient Hebrew priests traced their ancestry back to monkeys created in the image of God? What do secularist geniuses think about the origin of life and matter? Did God create the universe with an intelligent plan and mighty power, or do people think nothing created life and matter from nothing and without intelligence and a plan?

Well, I know what I believe, In short, when the earth reached a point in its material evolution wherein it could sustain life, primitive life forms were planted on it by celestial beings which were "fostered" and developed into life as we know it. More than a theory, the evidence is in the fossil record. I believe man was already here and the world already fallen when Adam and Eve incarnate on their mission, they were much earlier than the Hebrews thought, 38,000 BC.

 

[6days]

Quote=gcthomas]

Piltdown was questioned almost immediately, rejected fairly soon, with ongoing evidence sought to firmly disprove it's provenance.[/quote]
Gc... 100+ years after the fraud you are still defending it. Your statements are false. (Atheistic Talkorigins calls that lie a "half truth") Piltdown was questioned by some but widely accepted for 40 years within the evolutionary community.

 

[marke]

Please name a text book that was in common use. Or even a textbook that was actually in use in schools.

Those textbooks have been removed and destroyed by the embarrassed secular groups responsible for teaching evolutionist propaganda in schools. You may perhaps be unaware of the common evolutionist admonition not to rely on old secular science proclamations. They no doubt realize they have had to do a lot of editing and rewriting over the years to keep pace with modern scientific discoveries. Surely you remember when Darwin's tree was felled by new understandings of micro-biology?

 

[marke]

That's pathetic. You claim that Piltdown Man was widely taught and imply that is truth was important to the science of evolution, and the only textbook anyone mentions turns out not to mention the fraud.

When called out no one apologises. Oh no. You present an encyclopaedia as evidence. Hardly a school text book. Poor effort.

Piltdown survived nearly fifty years as a hoax deliberately crafted to deceive people into believing the fossil record supports human evolution from relatives of monkeys. Early prominent scientists put blacks in cages to showcase their ideas of human evolution from monkeys. I totally understand modern evolutionist embarrassment over past 'scientific' proclamations made by early evolutionists.