Creation vs. Evolution

[patrick jane]

Now it does indeed, but such was not always so. I recall when Stipe was your screen name, and I presume you selected it, so it must not have been objectionable to you. Is there now something nefarious associated with that name, and you no longer want it used?

But anyway, I will try to remember the “r” in your newly evolved name, on condition you try to curtail your use of mockery. Deal?

where have you been, since 2010 ? - atrol:

 

[Stripe]

:mock: alwrong

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe just called me "dishonest."

Perhaps Connie will match that, and call me a self-loathing homosexual. :angel:

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks. Coming from someone with whom I have significant differences on important aspects of science and religion, I take that as a complement. If I were in lock-step with your beliefs, then you would not view me as weird.

Calling names is Stipe's M.O. No one really pays any attention to it.

 

[DavisBJ]

Over 2 hours, almost a record for Stipe

Over 2 hours, almost a record for Stipe

:mock: alwrong

Not surprisingly, 2 hours and 11 minutes after his “will-not-engage-in-mocking” agreement took effect, Stipe once again succumbed to his addiction to mocking.

 

[alwight]

Not surprisingly, 2 hours and 11 minutes after his “will-not-engage-in-mocking” agreement took effect, Stipe once again succumbed to his addiction to mocking.

Strrripe perhaps belongs on a :mock: fundie farm, geddit? lain:

 

[6days]

Ok, as I see your answer in brief, it boils down to: “Evolutionists do it too”. I guess that is a start, admitting that R. H. Brown’s article is a just a rigged deck, and not letting science impartially lead to the answer at all.

Perhaps you have missed it, but I have often admitted I am 100% biased...as are atheists...as are most evolutionists. I think in our short chat here, I stated that my starting position is that God's Word is absolute truth.

Nor will I for a moment deny that there are cases, some rather famous, where scientists have made assumptions that turned out to be fallacious. Piltdown man is a pretty famous example of where some scientists had to eat humble pie. When the evidence was examined in greater detail, and more impartially, they had to drop their misconceptions and get back in line with the evidence nature provided.

Piltdown and other 'rather famous' cases of fraud are not what we are talking about. *We are discussing how creationists and evolutionists have a biased worldview through which they filter the evidence.*
Example:
Evolutionists claimed our appendix was useless, therefore it was a biological leftover...evidence of common ancestry.

Creationists suggested a couple possible explanations that fit the Biblical account.

It was suggested that science may not yet have discovered the purpose of our appendix. (This proved to be correct as it does serve important purpose). The other explanation creationists offered is that it truely may have lost the function for which God created it in humans.

But both creationists and evolutionists interpret origins evidence according to their biased starting point. *(As they did, and still do with the appendix)

*You YECers willing to do the same? You willing to, if the evidence falls against you, support millions of years for coal? If not, then again you are unabashedly wearing your dogma hat, and science is just a very thin veneer you used when you think it can fool the flock.

Young earth scientists sometimes disagree with eath other over interpretations just as evolutionists disagree. And, yes sometimes admissions are made that they were wrong.

The evidence from coal ..... C-14 says its about 40,000 years which supports the young earth model. (Explained earlier) And we know coal (and diamonds) can be formed rapidly. *

Lets look at another example.... evolutionists have claimed our eyes are wired backwards ...a sloppy design....that no omnipotent omniscient creator would make our eyes like that.*

But science has discovered there is a design advantage to vertebrate eyes...our retina has a "optimal design". Are you willing to consider that our eyes are evidence of the Biblical Creator?

 

[The Barbarian]

The evidence from coal ..... C-14 says its about 40,000 years

No. C-14 says that it's beyond the limit of the method. Like sticking a candy thermometer into a blast furnace and announcing that it is 150 degrees F.

Moreover, we find bacteria growing in coal seams so that there is residual modern carbon in most of it.

Likewise, we see elevated C-14 in diamonds only when they come from deposits with large amounts of thorium and uranium, where C-14 can be produced the same way it is produced in the upper atmosphere. And yes, nitrogen is commonly found in diamonds.

which supports the young earth model.

And now you know it doesn't.

Lets look at another example.... evolutionists have claimed our eyes are wired backwards .

Nope. The retina is "backwards" in the sense that the sensory cells are behind the surface of the retina, which means light has to travel through connective tissue to get to the sensors. This always degrades acuity. It can't be otherwise, since the retina forms from endoderm.

..a sloppy design....

No design at all. It evolved this way because that's the only way it could.

that no omnipotent omniscient creator would make our eyes like that.

Wrong again. Scientists point out that no designer would put a sensor behind material that degrades acuity. But it was created, not designed.

But science has discovered there is a design advantage to vertebrate eyes...our retina has a "optimal design".

Nope. You've been had on that one. An ideal design would not have the sensors behind the support. This is why critical optical mirrors are front-surface mirrors; the glass degrades acuity.

Are you willing to consider that our eyes are evidence of the Biblical Creator?

You have a choice between the Creator who made it so that this could evolve, or your "designer", who is said by IDers to be perhaps a "space alien." Which is it?

 

[Stripe]

me a self-loathing homosexual.:

No one really pays any attention to it.

Not surprisingly, 2 hours and 11 minutes after his “will-not-engage-in-mocking” agreement took effect, Stipe once again succumbed to his addiction to mocking.

:darwinsm: Are you lot all drinking from the same barrel?

No. C-14 says that it's beyond the limit of the method. Like sticking a candy thermometer into a blast furnace and announcing that it is 150 degrees F.

Only if you assert the truth of your assumptions. An honest man would admit that with different, perfectly reasonable, assumptions, your assertion would be utterly untenable.

Can you properly describe the alternative set of assumptions you face?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian on the foolishness of using C-14 methods on very old objects:
No. C-14 says that it's beyond the limit of the method. Like sticking a candy thermometer into a blast furnace and announcing that it is 150 degrees F.

Only if you assert the truth of your assumptions.

Maybe, if you'd abandon your canned retorts, and tried to put a rational argument together, people wouldn't laugh at you. Worth a try. Coal tests out around 40,000 years because that's where the needle pegs; it's the oldest age available with most C-14 equipment. Lately, coal has been testing closer to 50,000 years. Guess why, Stipe.

Yep. New methods are more accurate, and can measure longer ages.

An honest man would admit that with different, perfectly reasonable, assumptions, your assertion would be utterly untenable.

Never heard an honest man make that assertion. Diogenes would pass you right by.

Can you properly describe the alternative set of assumptions you face?

Tough call. You guys can't even agree among yourselves about that stuff. You think God created fossils to delude the unbelieving? You think the diversity of life evolved by hyperevolution in a few thousand years from a few "kinds" on the Ark? You think Adam and Eve had all of the dozens of alleles we see today for each human gene?

You think the Earth is still, and the Sun goes around it? You think women have one more rib than men? You think men killed T-rex dinosaurs by "ripping off their tiny arms?"

Those are all beliefs of YE creationists. How many of them do you think are true?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Perhaps you have missed it, but I have often admitted I am 100% biased...as are atheists...as are most evolutionists. I think in our short chat here, I stated that my starting position is that God's Word is absolute truth.



Piltdown and other 'rather famous' cases of fraud are not what we are talking about. *We are discussing how creationists and evolutionists have a biased worldview through which they filter the evidence.*
Example:
Evolutionists claimed our appendix was useless, therefore it was a biological leftover...evidence of common ancestry.

Creationists suggested a couple possible explanations that fit the Biblical account.

It was suggested that science may not yet have discovered the purpose of our appendix. (This proved to be correct as it does serve important purpose). The other explanation creationists offered is that it truely may have lost the function for which God created it in humans.

But both creationists and evolutionists interpret origins evidence according to their biased starting point. *(As they did, and still do with the appendix)



Young earth scientists sometimes disagree with eath other over interpretations just as evolutionists disagree. And, yes sometimes admissions are made that they were wrong.

The evidence from coal ..... C-14 says its about 40,000 years which supports the young earth model. (Explained earlier) And we know coal (and diamonds) can be formed rapidly. *

Lets look at another example.... evolutionists have claimed our eyes are wired backwards ...a sloppy design....that no omnipotent omniscient creator would make our eyes like that.*

But science has discovered there is a design advantage to vertebrate eyes...our retina has a "optimal design". Are you willing to consider that our eyes are evidence of the Biblical Creator?

Dear 6days,

I agree with all that you have to say here. I also believe that there is no 8,000-year-old carbon/coal, to be honest. But there is a veil {or 4th dimension} which God has kept our eyes from seeing through. That's one thing I do know. I can't wait 'til He reveals it all to you. He will do it before Jesus Returns, for you will see it as the Sign of the Coming of Jesus. Oh, will you ALL be surprised. I refrain from telling you what I've seen because you {not you 6days} are not yet able to bear it.

"And the mystery of God shall be finished, as He has declared to His servants, the prophets." {Rev. 10:7KJV}

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Why should your opinion have any credibility?

noguru, I kinda have to concur that you should be in a mandated time-out right now. I am not aware of what offense the moderator made his banning judgement on, but your comment to StanJ is just plain wrong. For the most part, the messenger is not what counts, it is the message. I think it is patently obvious that StanJ did not author what he posted, almost all of it is from people with pretty respectable credentials. The original authors of what StanJ posted could more correctly ask why they should consider your opinion.

 

[patrick jane]

Dear 6days,

I agree with all that you have to say here. I also believe that there is no 8,000-year-old carbon/coal, to be honest. But there is a veil {or 4th dimension} which God has kept our eyes from seeing through. That's one thing I do know. I can't wait 'til He reveals it all to you. He will do it before Jesus Returns, for you will see it as the Sign of the Coming of Jesus. Oh, will you ALL be surprised. I refrain from telling you what I've seen because you {not you 6days} are not yet able to bear it.

"And the mystery of God shall be finished, as He has declared to His servants, the prophets." {Rev. 10:7KJV}

Michael

tell us all - atrol:

 

[Stripe]

Maybe.

Well there's a start. :thumb: Can you properly repeat what we believe about the C14-C12 ratio that is so different to what you believe?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear BJ,

I'm really sorry that you don't have God and Jesus in your life, but that's up to you when it comes down to picking sides up for baseball. And no, Patrick Jane, I will not tell you all. I can keep a secret just like the best of them. Don't plot to kill the messenger just because you don't like the message.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

tell us all - atrol:

Thanks pj for coloring up my post. You did an EXCELLENT job and I can't help but thank you for the artistry!!

God Be With You!!

Michael

:surf:

 

[iamaberean]

Dear 6days,

I agree with all that you have to say here. I also believe that there is no 8,000-year-old carbon/coal, to be honest. But there is a veil {or 4th dimension} which God has kept our eyes from seeing through. That's one thing I do know. I can't wait 'til He reveals it all to you. He will do it before Jesus Returns, for you will see it as the Sign of the Coming of Jesus. Oh, will you ALL be surprised. I refrain from telling you what I've seen because you {not you 6days} are not yet able to bear it.

"And the mystery of God shall be finished, as He has declared to His servants, the prophets." {Rev. 10:7KJV}

Michael

Patrickjane and I would like to hear it!

 

[The Barbarian]

Can you properly repeat what we believe about the C14-C12 ratio that is so different to what you believe?

The most recent one that intrigues me is the belief that the accumulation of C-14 in biomass declined during "The Flood." But that's a completely foolish notion, since oceans actually do more photosynthesis than the land.

There's the idea that if there's vanishingly small amounts of C-14, below the accuracy of the analysis, that means the age is 40,000 years (or whatever the current sensitivity is)

There's the idea that there's no way to calibrate variations in production of C-14 over the years.

But, as in the case of other things, YE beliefs about C-14 are all over the map, and most of you guys disagree about the specifics. For example, do you honestly think the oceans stopped photosynthesis during a flood?

If so, I'd very much like to hear how you got that. Or when you guys get your beliefs organized, give us a statement of what they are.

 

[Stripe]

The most recent one that intrigues me is the belief that the accumulation of C-14 in biomass declined during "The Flood." But that's a completely foolish notion, since oceans actually do more photosynthesis than the land.There's the idea that if there's vanishingly small amounts of C-14, below the accuracy of the analysis, that means the age is 40,000 years (or whatever the current sensitivity is)There's the idea that there's no way to calibrate variations in production of C-14 over the years.But, as in the case of other things, YE beliefs about C-14 are all over the map, and most of you guys disagree about the specifics. For example, do you honestly think the oceans stopped photosynthesis during a floodIf so, I'd very much like to hear how you got that. Or when you guys get your beliefs organized, give us a statement of what they are.

Nope. None of those. What did we say?

Can you properly repeat what we said about the C14-C12 ratio that is so different to what you believe?

A cut and paste would do the job nicely. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding creationist beliefs about C-14 on this board:
The most recent one that intrigues me is the belief that the accumulation of C-14 in biomass declined during "The Flood." But that's a completely foolish notion, since oceans actually do more photosynthesis than the land.There's the idea that if there's vanishingly small amounts of C-14, below the accuracy of the analysis, that means the age is 40,000 years (or whatever the current sensitivity is)There's the idea that there's no way to calibrate variations in production of C-14 over the years.But, as in the case of other things, YE beliefs about C-14 are all over the map, and most of you guys disagree about the specifics. For example, do you honestly think the oceans stopped photosynthesis during a floodIf so, I'd very much like to hear how you got that. Or when you guys get your beliefs organized, give us a statement of what they are.

Nope.

Sorry, you're wrong; all of those have been expressed by creationists here.

What did we say?

All that, and more. Or are you doing the royal "we" today?

Can you properly repeat what we said about the C14-C12 ratio that is so different to what you believe?

That thing about C-14 being interrupted by a flood is pretty weird.

Could you link me to the stuff you think is right instead of me guessing which ones you believe and which ones you don't?