I wish evolution was true ... because I would have Wings

[UppsalaDragby]

So help me out here...I think you appreciate the fact that I'm educated and experienced in biology and some other earth/life sciences. Given your previous use of the terms "indoctrinated" and "programmed", exactly how do you think my education and experiences went? Do you think I never, ever once had any sort of a critical thought about anything I learned or saw?

Since we live in a world where practically everyone, from early childhood and upwards, is being fed with the idea that evolution is an undeniable, proven fact and that scientists know what the age of the earth is, it would take someone with a completely different attitude and rhetoric than yours to convince me that you are not "indoctrinated" and "programmed". Someone who employs critical thinking does not use the lingo that you have been using here. For example, they don't resort to trying to impress the audience with statistics about how many scientists believe in evolution and pretend that peer review is an antidote for bias.

A few questions:
1) What evidence is lacking that would convince you that the scientific community is correct in concluding that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth?
2) What from the "science side" did you study? Give specific citations if you can.
3) Can you give a specific example of an "evolutionist" doing what you described?

1) Nothing.

2) Why would I need to study the "science side"? If the truth of origins is beyond the scope of science then why would I need to do that?

3) There are countless examples of that all around the internet. For example, someone who thinks that radiometric dating proves the age of the earth calls creationists "liars" because they contend that the earth is young. And you, for example, use the worn-out argument that 99% of scientists believe in evolution. But what exactly does that prove when the point of contention in this debate is unobservable, unrepeatable, and untestable? All it amounts to is opinion, which only produces a snow-balling effect. If you think that statistics like that are significant then so will the next person who is about to become a scientists, and so on.

I need your help here. When I asked you in another thread why you posted creation.com's list of "evidences for a young age of the earth", you answered, "to show that there is supporting evidence". Now you're saying that there's no direct physical evidence supporting a young earth.

I make a distinction between "supporting evidence" and "direct physical evidence". For example, radiometric dating is direct physical evidence that some materials decay at a certain rate today, but not that the earth is old.

Well wouldn't I and all my colleagues have to be?

Because you are human!

Or are you trying to make that claim that intelligence immunizes people from deception?

How else do you explain the fact that we spent so many years studying these subjects, conducting experiments, doing field studies, etc....yet it's all a complete fraud?

Perhaps it is BECAUSE you spent so many years you have spent studying these subjects. Truth is a gift. If God reveals the truth to a toothless old woman in Siberia (no offence to them) who knows nothing about science, then don't you think it is a little presumptuous of you to assume that those who are schooled and intelligent are those who are not being deceived? The wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight.

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Certainly, just as God has the ability to create everything last Thursday, but just make it appear as if everything's been around longer. But that would be deceptive, just as creating a distant galaxy while simultaneously creating its light almost the entire way to earth would be.

It wouldn't be deceptive IF God said he created everything last Thursday, so why throw out a red herring into the discussion? God said he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, not billions of years, so why do you persist in saying that he would be deceptive in doing so?

Second, notice where AiG starts their argument, "The straightforward reading of Scripture reveals that the days of creation (Genesis 1) were literal days and that the earth is just thousands of years old and not billions." That, plus their statement of faith that declares up front that any and all evidence that contradicts their reading of scripture is wrong by definition, tells you where their extreme bias is. But at least they're honest about it.

Neither you nor anyone else I have encountered in discussions like this have given any reason to assume that the Genesis account should not be interpreted in a straightforward manner. All you seem to do is uses words like "fundamentalists" and "hyper-literalists" and so on, as thought they were insults, but until anyone gives me a good reason (where "good" is not things such as "scientists believe it"), then why should I do anything else than believe it as anyone else would reading an historical account?

Lastly, specific to their arguments, they claim that an assumption is "The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known".
That simply isn't true. Note the Tulane page states, "Now we can calculate the age if we know the number of daughter atoms produced by decay, D* and the number of parent atoms now present, N. The only problem is that we only know the number of daughter atoms now present, and some of those may have been present prior to the start of our clock." They then go on to explain how an age can be derived without knowing the initial conditions.
Why do you think AiG doesn't tell its readers that?

In order for AiG to "aviod telling its readers" you are assuming that they draw the same conclusions that the Tulane page states. Do you know that for a fact, or are you simply making an assumption. Not being a physisist myself makes it difficult to tell, so perhaps you can break down for me how the link you provided shows how it is possilble to know the original number of daughter atoms. Otherwise, we can take technical discussions like this to another forum where poeple are more familiar with physics than I am. Let me know if that is the case.

Really? That's a pretty significant claim. So please share a specific example of ice core and/or lake varve samples where apparent annual layers are due to something else.

I already did so when you made the proposterous statement that you could detect "seasonal" layers that were repeatedly layed down for tens of thousands of years! I pointed out that when Mount St. Helens erupted in Washington State it produced 25 feet of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon.

The same applies to ice cores:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n3/greenland

We have cave paintings that are apparently older than the earth itself.

LOL!! Really? Older than the earth? And that is evidence that the earth is old?

No

Well how can you criticize others for believing in what scripture says when you do the same thing yourself?

Unbelievable. I mean....I'm just stunned. You're actually going to argue that "perceived evidence" is not the same thing as "data"?
Dude....c'mon now. :blink:

You are a scientist, right???? Well I am EQUALLY STUNNED that you, being a scientist, don't understand that "percieved evidence" is interpreted data, not the data itself!!!!

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

Once again I think our conversation has reached a point where I don't see any reason to keep beating the same dead horses. Given that you've just declared there is no evidence that would convince you to change your position on these issues, there's no point in trying to explain science to you or trying to expose the fact that creationist organizations like AiG aren't telling you the truth.

As before, I see your responses are mostly reflexive hand waving, rather than objective and deeply considered answers.

So long as you're in the mental mode of "evolution and old-earth have to be wrong" rather than "they are wrong", very little discussion is possible.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

Once again I think our conversation has reached a point where I don't see any reason to keep beating the same dead horses. Given that you've just declared there is no evidence that would convince you to change your position on these issues, there's no point in trying to explain science to you or trying to expose the fact that creationist organizations like AiG aren't telling you the truth.

As before, I see your responses are mostly reflexive hand waving, rather than objective and deeply considered answers.

So long as you're in the mental mode of "evolution and old-earth have to be wrong" rather than "they are wrong", very little discussion is possible.

Really, where exactly did I declare that there was no evidence that would convince me to change my position?

 

[Mr.Bride]

It's amazing how the anti-Christians will believe what a man says over what the Holy Spirit says. At the same time saying man makes mistakes and that the reason they don't believe the Bible. Mind-boggling...

'I'll take what this man(who errors) says because there are things in the Bible that don't look right' says the anti-Christian.

We don't look to man, but to God. Jesus said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can't have eternal life. That threw people for a loop.

Jesus said that no man can come to Him except the Father draw him..What happened after he said that? 'From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.(John 6:66)

They never walked with him to start with.

He asked me will I also go away and I answered just as Simon Peter 'Lord to whom shall we(I) go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.

Not a man. I pray you'll catch the vision. You need more than the words of mere man. You need a revelation. Pray God'll open your eyes.

Blessings

 

[aspen]

This argument (it ceased to be a discussion days ago) reminds me of arguments with Mormons about the Doctrine of the Trinity. Mormons will try to discounted this doctrine on the basis that it is confusing and therefore, since God in completely knowable in their religion, it must be false. What they are really claiming is that the Trinity is not taught in their church so it must be false AND the doctrine of the Trinity, if true under minds their faith, and that is too frightening to mess around with so it must be attacked at all costs. This is sad because it is fear based and it stops all reasoning and exercising of faith. For one thing, the truth of the Trinity does not discount Mormonism - it is false long before you get to their wrong teachings about the nature of God. Secondly, ideas should never threaten a true faith. Christians should never be afraid of ideas that fall outside of the teachings of the Bible - if the idea ends up being wrong, cool; if it ends up being truth, God will explain it to us someday. No need to get all whipped up into a foaming mouthed rabid dog trying to protect his bone. Evolution is either true or it isn't - do you really think our loving Father is going to punish you for considering evidence and being honest about how compelling it is or isn't? God does not need you to defend Him - nor does He need your blind, groupie-like devotion.

 

[River Jordan]

Really, where exactly did I declare that there was no evidence that would convince me to change my position?

I asked you, "What evidence is lacking that would convince you that the scientific community is correct in concluding that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth?"

You answered, "Nothing".

It is a fruitless exercise to attempt objective discussion of science with such a person.

However, upon further consideration, there are a few follow-up questions I'd like to ask.

In your mind, what is the difference between "education/experience" and "indoctrination/programming"?

Earlier you said that you "have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say" (about things like the fossil record, natural selection, the evolution of aerobic bacteria). But when I asked you to specify what from the science side you studied, you answered, "Why would I need to study the "science side"?" Can you explain your answer in light of your previous claim that you "looked at both sides"?

If you can't understand the fairly straightforward explanation of how some radiometric dating techniques do not rely on the assumptions that AiG claims, on what basis can you definitively reject it as a viable methodology?

What specifically from AiG's webpage on ice cores do you find to be a scientifically valid argument?

And finally, I asked you this in another thread and didn't get an answer: What specific spot at Mt St Helens do you believe shows 25 feet of finely layered sediment, comparable to what scientists have been referring to as annual layers?



Aspen,

I'm wondering who Mr. Bride thinks he's talking to....who here is "anti-Christian"?

 

[Mr.Bride]

Whomever the shoe fits, lace up...River Jordan, you know a tree by its fruit that's all. If you're not guilty then no worries.

 

[snr5557]

Whomever the shoe fits, lace up...River Jordan, you know a tree by its fruit that's all. If you're not guilty then no worries.

Great then, now that we all know that no one here is guilty we can move on from this topic that you keep trying to bring up.

 

[River Jordan]

If Mr. Bride didn't have anyone here in mind, then why post about "anti-Christians"? It doesn't make sense.

Might as well have posted something about people from Armenia or something. :wacko:

 

[Mr.Bride]

Great then, now that we all know that no one here is guilty we can move on from this topic that you keep trying to bring up.

Are you offended? And what topic do I keep trying to bring up Snr?

Everybody that says they're Christian ain't Christian. The Word'll weed'em out though. The Word determines guiltiness. Not you. But no worries mate. God bless you

 

[aspen]

I am dealing with a coward right now in real life - due to his inability to own his words and actions, several of my friends have lost their jobs and the wreckage just keeps pulling up. If you are going to troll, Mr. Bride then at least be brave enough to own it. Thanks.

 

[Mr.Bride]

Speak a little more clearly aspen, not understanding what ur saying. That shoe didn't fit you did it?? Doth my words offend you?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I asked you, "What evidence is lacking that would convince you that the scientific community is correct in concluding that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth?"

You answered, "Nothing".

Yes, and WHY did I give that answer? Because I DON'T have any problem with the fact that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but I thought that since I have already given you my view of where the point of contention lies I wouldn't need to go into detail about this. We see an enormous amount of diversity in life and most of it is likely the result of evolution, however I do not believe that ALL diversity is due to evolution or that we all had a common ancestor.

Now I Think I was pretty clear earier on when you SPECIFICALLY asked me "Well let me ask you...if there is such direct physical evidence of those things, would you change your mind? Would that affect how you read scripture?"

To which I answered "Of course, I would". And yet despite that you decide to deliberately missrepresent me.

In your mind, what is the difference between "education/experience" and "indoctrination/programming"?

When things that are clearly not facts are taught as though they were facts.

Earlier you said that you "have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say" (about things like the fossil record, natural selection, the evolution of aerobic bacteria). But when I asked you to specify what from the science side you studied, you answered, "Why would I need to study the "science side"?" Can you explain your answer in light of your previous claim that you "looked at both sides"?

I haven't looked at one particular "science side". I tried to look at it from all side. What's your point?

If you can't understand the fairly straightforward explanation of how some radiometric dating techniques do not rely on the assumptions that AiG claims, on what basis can you definitively reject it as a viable methodology?

Fairly straightforward? What do you mean by that? It was a very technical document for someone who hasn't studied physics. I never claimed that I was a scientist. I asked you to break it down for me, why haven't you done so?

I might not understand physics, but what I do understand is that no one was present millions, or even thousands of years ago. I don't "reject" anything, I just don't have the capacity to judge whether or not this article contains assumptions or not, but I can't see how it couldn't.

It was for this reason I suggested we take it to another forum - a creationist forum. You can make your arguments and get better responses that the ones I can give you. But you didn't respond to that either.

In fact, why are you so busy here in this forum? Wouldn't it be better to go to a forum that specifically deals with these issues?

What specifically from AiG's webpage on ice cores do you find to be a scientifically valid argument?

The AiG's webpage simply explains how ice cores dating can be consistent with a creationist model. Was there something on the page that you didn't find scientifically valid?

And finally, I asked you this in another thread and didn't get an answer: What specific spot at Mt St Helens do you believe shows 25 feet of finely layered sediment, comparable to what scientists have been referring to as annual layers?

You DID get a response from me. I told you I don't know. And then I said "So here you have a BIG advantage over me to show off your superior knowledge.... although... I doubt very strongly you were present at your famous lakebed a few THOUSAND years ago..."

It was YOU who didn't respond, not me.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, and WHY did I give that answer? Because I DON'T have any problem with the fact that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but I thought that since I have already given you my view of where the point of contention lies I wouldn't need to go into detail about this. We see an enormous amount of diversity in life and most of it is likely the result of evolution, however I do not believe that ALL diversity is due to evolution or that we all had a common ancestor.

A follow-up question: What "diversity of life" isn't due to evolution, and how do we differentiate it from what is due to evolution?

When things that are clearly not facts are taught as though they were facts.

Please give specific examples. Remember, you've made claims specifically about my education (using the terms "indoctrination" and "programming"), so I'm expecting you to specify exactly what I was taught "as a fact" that isn't really a fact.

I haven't looked at one particular "science side". I tried to look at it from all side. What's your point?

When you said you "have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say", what "sides" were you talking about?

Fairly straightforward? What do you mean by that? It was a very technical document for someone who hasn't studied physics. I never claimed that I was a scientist. I asked you to break it down for me, why haven't you done so?

I might not understand physics, but what I do understand is that no one was present millions, or even thousands of years ago. I don't "reject" anything, I just don't have the capacity to judge whether or not this article contains assumptions or not, but I can't see how it couldn't.

You've made some extremely bold claims about radiometric dating methodologies, yet when I provide you with a university webpage that explains how the process works, you throw up your hands and claim it's too technical for you to understand.

What do you think that says about your ability to judge the validity of radiometric dating?

I have no problem explaining the Tulane webpage for you. Remember, AiG claimed that scientists merely assume that there was no daughter element present when the rock was formed, and that there has been no subsequent infusion of daughter element.

As Tulane explains, there is a specific method to address this question. With 87Rb --> 87Sr, we can check the amount of 86Sr present in the rock. 86Sr is a stable isotope that isn't produced by decay, nor does it decay into anything else. IOW, the amount of 86Sr present in the rock doesn't change.

This allows you to incorporate the amount of 86Sr into the isochron equation (you divide the entire equation by 86Sr), which gives you a ratio of the present amounts of 86Sr and 87Sr, as well as 86Sr and 87Rb.

In isochron methodologies, multiple samples are taken (rocks that include several different minerals) and the above is calculated for each. The results can be plotted using the standard linear equation, y = mx + b. If the resulting line plot is linear and has a positive slope, then there is a mathematical relationship between the amount of parent element in each sample and how much the samples have been enriched in the daughter element relative to the stable isotope. Further, a linear relationship allows the isochron equation to be simplified, and eventually solved for t (time).

If there has been significant infusion of daughter element since the material was formed, the resulting plot will not be linear with a positive slope.

IOW, AiG isn't giving anything near an accurate picture of how this method is used and how the resulting ages are generated.

It was for this reason I suggested we take it to another forum - a creationist forum. You can make your arguments and get better responses that the ones I can give you. But you didn't respond to that either.

In fact, why are you so busy here in this forum? Wouldn't it be better to go to a forum that specifically deals with these issues?

In my experience, such forums do not allow people like me to participate.

The AiG's webpage simply explains how ice cores dating can be consistent with a creationist model. Was there something on the page that you didn't find scientifically valid?

Does it do that? Remember, you posted the link, so the presumption is that you have read it, understood it, and find it to be a valid rebuttal to scientific interpretations of ice core data. So I'm simply asking you to specify exactly what at that webpage you find so compelling.

You DID get a response from me. I told you I don't know.

Then your posts about that aren't making any sense.

You claimed that "the presupposition is that all layers are annual. We KNOW that that is not always the case". When I asked you to specify how you "know" such a thing, you responded "when Mount St. Helens erupted in Washington State it produced 25 feet of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon".

But now you're telling me you don't know where that actually happened, beyond just "Mt St Helens"?

It looks like you and I have very different thoughts on what "knowing" something means.

 

[KingJ]

1. A follow-up question: What "diversity of life" isn't due to evolution, and how do we differentiate it from what is due to evolution?

2. Please give specific examples. Remember, you've made claims specifically about my education (using the terms "indoctrination" and "programming"), so I'm expecting you to specify exactly what I was taught "as a fact" that isn't really a fact.

3. It looks like you and I have very different thoughts on what "knowing" something means.

1. All diverstity of life is created. Mess cannot become order unless it is guided. It is not guided because God does not use natural selection...because God is not evil. Nothing is due to evolution except many pay cheques .

2. Example = the tiktaalik, you forget? I can just as easily suggest a missing link and say 'oh look I found it' :lol: , or find it and say 'oh look a missing link'.

3. For sure. I know scripture is the truth. Scripture says God is good. Scripture says Adam was the first man. Scripture puts Adam at between 4000 bc - 5500 bc. Scripture says God is good and mankind and the fallen angels are sinners. Natural selection is evil. God is not evil .

Now would you have me believe contrary to the bible? Can you provide a single scienctific fact that the bible has ever opposed and being wrong on?

What you need to do is read 2 Pet 1:21 repeatedly.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

A follow-up question: What "diversity of life" isn't due to evolution, and how do we differentiate it from what is due to evolution?

Read your Bible!

Plants and trees were created on day three.

Birds and sea creatures on day four:

"God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

Notice in the above verse that God makes a clear distinction between different "kinds". Now you can whine all you want about the word kind, it makes no difference whatsover, this verse clearly shows us that there IS such a thing as a kind and that it separates birds from fish and so on. Now you can try and figure out some clever way to shoehorn evolution between verses, but save them for someone else who accepts such a loose and sloppy way of interpreting scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to tell us that scripture is God-breathed and useful for correction, among other things. But no one can be corrected who does not acknowledge the authority of scripture, and who treats it as though it is open to poke any kind of rubbish in between the lines they want.

On the 6th day God created land animals, and then finaly mankind, who he made in his own image.

That there is diversity within each of these kinds of animals can be explained by evolution.

Please give specific examples. Remember, you've made claims specifically about my education (using the terms "indoctrination" and "programming"), so I'm expecting you to specify exactly what I was taught "as a fact" that isn't really a fact.

That dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago. That man evolved from apes. That we all come from a common ancestor. That life came from non-life.

When you said you "have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say", what "sides" were you talking about?

What I meant was from both sides of this debate. Judging from what I have seen from most evolutionists they are only familiar with what evolutionists tell them and most of what they think creationists are saying is what other evolutionists have told them creationists are saying, such as that we believe that every species alive today was on the ark including full-grown elephants and dinosaurs. That Mount Everest was the same height during the flood as it is today, that creationists use the Bible as a science text book, and so on.

You've made some extremely bold claims about radiometric dating methodologies, yet when I provide you with a university webpage that explains how the process works, you throw up your hands and claim it's too technical for you to understand.

Nonsense!!! I haven't made any bold statements about radiometric dating methodologies based on technical physics and neither did I make any boasts about understanding physics at that level. You are simply trying to twist everything around in a pathetic attempt to put me on the defensive.

Now listen River Jordan, and listen good! I make BOLD claims about what I know, and what I KNOW in this context is that NO ONE living today was present to test and verify the claims that ANY scientists has made about the origin of the earth or the universe! In that respect it is NOT testable, repeatable or observable science.

What do you think that says about your ability to judge the validity of radiometric dating?
I have no problem explaining the Tulane webpage for you. Remember, AiG claimed that scientists merely assume that there was no daughter element present when the rock was formed, and that there has been no subsequent infusion of daughter element.
As Tulane explains, there is a specific method to address this question. With 87Rb --> 87Sr, we can check the amount of 86Sr present in the rock. 86Sr is a stable isotope that isn't produced by decay, nor does it decay into anything else. IOW, the amount of 86Sr present in the rock doesn't change.
This allows you to incorporate the amount of 86Sr into the isochron equation (you divide the entire equation by 86Sr), which gives you a ratio of the present amounts of 86Sr and 87Sr, as well as 86Sr and 87Rb.
In isochron methodologies, multiple samples are taken (rocks that include several different minerals) and the above is calculated for each. The results can be plotted using the standard linear equation, y = mx + b. If the resulting line plot is linear and has a positive slope, then there is a mathematical relationship between the amount of parent element in each sample and how much the samples have been enriched in the daughter element relative to the stable isotope. Further, a linear relationship allows the isochron equation to be simplified, and eventually solved for t (time).
If there has been significant infusion of daughter element since the material was formed, the resulting plot will not be linear with a positive slope.
IOW, AiG isn't giving anything near an accurate picture of how this method is used and how the resulting ages are generated.

As I pointed out:

"It was for this reason I suggested we take it to another forum - a creationist forum. You can make your arguments and get better responses that the ones I can give you."

In my experience, such forums do not allow people like me to participate.

No problem. I was formerly a moderator at "such" a forum. I guarantee you that you can participate as long as you abide by the forum rules.

But now you're telling me you don't know where that actually happened, beyond just "Mt St Helens"?
It looks like you and I have very different thoughts on what "knowing" something means.

You have a bad habit of distoring what has been said. I NEVER said that I knew WHERE on Mt. Saint Helens it happened, merely THAT it happened. REREAD the text you quoted!!!

 

[River Jordan]

1. All diverstity of life is created. Mess cannot become order unless it is guided. It is not guided because God does not use natural selection...because God is not evil. Nothing is due to evolution except many pay cheques .

All of which is directly contradicted by observed reality. We see new species, traits, abilities, and genetic sequences evolve all the time.

Why do you insist that Christians must deny the reality that's around us? Have you forgotten that we are to be truthful in everything we do?

2. Example = the tiktaalik, you forget? I can just as easily suggest a missing link and say 'oh look I found it' :lol: , or find it and say 'oh look a missing link'.

?????? I guess I have forgotten how you or anyone else has directly addressed the Tiktaalik specimens. What I remember is that you claimed evolution had no "observable consequences", I presented the fact that under the framework of evolutionary theory, scientists predicted that such an organism would exist, when it should have existed, what features it should have, and where it should be found, and then they went out and found exactly what they'd predicted. Then you responded by just waving your arms and yelling "The fact is on matters of faith you don't take the bible's side".

IOW, you were demonstrably wrong but rather than humbly admit it and correct your error, you once again resorted to questioning my faith. And now here you are again making the same demonstrably false argument.

This is a common theme in the stories of people who leave Christianity in part because of creationism. The creationists provide false arguments, and when confronted with reality they attack the person who dares to even look. I think I'll start a thread on this later today.

3. For sure. I know scripture is the truth. Scripture says God is good. Scripture says Adam was the first man. Scripture puts Adam at between 4000 bc - 5500 bc. Scripture says God is good and mankind and the fallen angels are sinners. Natural selection is evil. God is not evil .

I'm trying to remember the scripture that says anything about natural selection....but coming up blank. :wacko:

Now would you have me believe contrary to the bible? Can you provide a single scienctific fact that the bible has ever opposed and being wrong on?

I've demonstrated multiple times that your specific reading of the Bible is directly contrary to observable reality. But apparently you think yourself infallible and without error.

What you need to do is read 2 Pet 1:21 repeatedly.

What does a passage about prophecy have to do with what we're discussing?

Read your Bible!

I've noticed this pattern you have where you start off by dipping your toe into science-oriented arguments, but as soon as I start to shoot them down you pull your toe out and yell "BIBLE!! I HAVE MY BIBLE AND THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS!!"

If you're going to try and make scientifically-based arguments, then you need to see them through even if it turns out they're wrong.

So far, every time you try and step into the scientific arena and argue from that standpoint, you do terribly and mostly show that you don't really know much about the subject matter. Given that, and your response to this question, I don't understand why you feel so obviously compelled to try and make a scientific case for your religious beliefs. Is it because you crave the credibility that comes with the label "scientifically valid"?

"God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

And right before that scripture hints at how God created those things....by "letting the earth bring forth".

That there is diversity within each of these kinds of animals can be explained by evolution.

You can wave it away as "whining" all you want, but the fact is "kind" is an undefined term, and as such is meaningless.

That dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago. That man evolved from apes. That we all come from a common ancestor. That life came from non-life.

Please show for each of those:

1) How I was taught that they are "fact" (e.g., lecture material, textbooks)

2) How you know they aren't "fact".

What I meant was from both sides of this debate. Judging from what I have seen from most evolutionists they are only familiar with what evolutionists tell them and most of what they think creationists are saying is what other evolutionists have told them creationists are saying, such as that we believe that every species alive today was on the ark including full-grown elephants and dinosaurs. That Mount Everest was the same height during the flood as it is today, that creationists use the Bible as a science text book, and so on.

You're still not answering the question. You said you had "spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say". What are the two sides you studied? Evolutionary biology and young-earth creationism? Paleontology and progressive creationism? Geology and flood-creationism?

Nonsense!!! I haven't made any bold statements about radiometric dating methodologies based on technical physics and neither did I make any boasts about understanding physics at that level. You are simply trying to twist everything around in a pathetic attempt to put me on the defensive.

All I'm doing is going by what you've posted. You stated, "Not only is radiometric dating based on a uniformitarian presupposition, it DOES have inconsistencies across methods". Now you appear to be trying to say "I don't know much about radiometric dating".

Which is it? Are you knowledgeable enough in radiometric dating methods to be able to judge its validity, or are you ignorant of the subject such that most of what you say about it isn't meaningful?

Now listen River Jordan, and listen good! I make BOLD claims about what I know, and what I KNOW in this context is that NO ONE living today was present to test and verify the claims that ANY scientists has made about the origin of the earth or the universe! In that respect it is NOT testable, repeatable or observable science.

Your posts are showing otherwise.

No problem. I was formerly a moderator at "such" a forum. I guarantee you that you can participate as long as you abide by the forum rules.

What forum is that?

You have a bad habit of distoring what has been said. I NEVER said that I knew WHERE on Mt. Saint Helens it happened, merely THAT it happened. REREAD the text you quoted!!!

Every time I've brought up annual layering, you claim that Mt St Helens shows how "25 feet of finely layered sediment" was produced in "a single afternoon". But every time I try and get you to explain further, you refuse.

So how did you come to know about this in the first place?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Every time I've brought up annual layering, you claim that Mt St Helens shows how "25 feet of finely layered sediment" was produced in "a single afternoon". But every time I try and get you to explain further, you refuse.

So how did you come to know about this in the first place?

Mount St Helen's - multiple sediment layers , petrified trees , mini Grand Canyons , all formed in a very short time


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFC9EF81COU

 

[River Jordan]

Arnie,

First, thanks for at least trying to add some substance to the claim.

The problem is, Hovind's video is just....well....him claiming stuff. And his big argument is "At some point in the future a teacher is going to take students here and tell them 'See this erosion along the side of this pit? It took billions of years." That's simply absurd...as if geologists don't know the difference between erosion of volcanic ash and mud and erosion of rock.

Then he cites the "little Grand Canyon" in the Toutle watershed and argues that since it was made quickly, other canyons must also have been made the same way. But again, he's dishonestly acting as if geologists can't tell the difference between the erosion of volcanic ash and mud and erosion of multiple rock layers.

IOW, Hovind is lying.

Does that bother you at all? Are you open to the possibility that Hovind isn't an honest person?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Arnie,

First, thanks for at least trying to add some substance to the claim.

The problem is, Hovind's video is just....well....him claiming stuff. And his big argument is "At some point in the future a teacher is going to take students here and tell them 'See this erosion along the side of this pit? It took billions of years." That's simply absurd...as if geologists don't know the difference between erosion of volcanic ash and mud and erosion of rock.

Then he cites the "little Grand Canyon" in the Toutle watershed and argues that since it was made quickly, other canyons must also have been made the same way. But again, he's dishonestly acting as if geologists can't tell the difference between the erosion of volcanic ash and mud and erosion of multiple rock layers.

IOW, Hovind is lying.

Does that bother you at all? Are you open to the possibility that Hovind isn't an honest person?

What you are really saying is Hovind is not a real scientist
You only say that because his evidence (theory) does not agree with yours

But you are in good company River .... you are right up there with Bill Nye
He does exactly the same thing if you listen closely

Bring him a room full of scientists who believe in creation and he will say
They are not real scientists

It is the old ... "true Scotsman fallacy"

A Scottish representative proclaims that Scotsmen never put sugar in their porridge
A Scotsman in the crowd stands up and says .... that's not true .... I put sugar in my porridge every morning
The Scottish representative replies .... you are not a real Scotsman

You and Bill Nye do the exact same thing .... if the evidence does not agree with you , you proclaim the evidence is not real evidence ,
===========================================================================================================
===========================================================================================================
===========================================================================================================
===========================================================================================================
===========================================================================================================

River .... This is from Wikipedia so may not be bulletproof .... highlighted in red below are some interesting notes about the largest pre-historic mudslide presumably 60,000 years ago
[ remove one zero from 60,000 years and we are close to Noah's flood I just had to say that ]

.......................

Largest recorded mudslide

The world's largest historic landslide (in terms of volume) occurred during the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, a volcano in the Cascade Mountain Range in the State of Washington, USA. The volume of material was 2.8 km³. Directly in the path of the huge mudslide was Spirit Lake. Normally a chilly 5°C, the mudslide instantly raised the temperature to near 38°C. Today the bottom of Spirit Lake is 100 feet above the original surface. The lake now has two and a half times more surface area than it did before the eruption.

However, the world's largest prehistoric landslide, discovered to date, took place in south-western Iran, and is named the Saidmarreh Landslide. The landslide was located on the Kabir Kuh anticline in Southwest Iran at 33 degrees N, 47.65 degrees E. The landslide had a volume of about 20 cubic kilometers, a depth of 300 m, a travel distance of 14 km and a width of 5 km. This means that about 50 billion tons of rock moved in this single event.

The largest prehistoric landslide including submarine ones was an enormous submarine landslide that disintegrated 60,000 years ago produced the longest flow of sand and mud yet documented on Earth. The massive submarine flow travelled 1,500 kilometres – the distance from London to Rome – before depositing its load.