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

[aspen]

arnie, we do have wings - red bull. i rest my case

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

arnie, we do have wings - red bull. i rest my case

Are we talking about the Red Bull aerobatic team ..?.. those guys are the best .... they even fly helicopters upside down

 

[KingJ]

Powered flight is not in the Bible, so I guess that's "of the devil"?

"Then God said "Let the land produce vegetation"." Sounds like evolution to me.


Yep, and there were millions of Christians who thought the Bible taught a flat earth that didn't move and denied the science that showed otherwise.

Braindead reasoning!!!! Are you capable of truly honest discussion?

The bible does not mention flight but it does mention creation! We have covered the earth being flat example why do you repeat it like you missed it being settled? Deceitful person!

Well that's good, 'cause no one ever said it was.

So how does the influenza virus change? Does God make it change, or is something else going on?

Why you move the discussion here and not rather refer Horsecamp to where it is already discussed? You are beaten on it. Zip your trap and stop trying to stumble fellow Christians.

Pick two taxonomic groups that are supposed to be evolutionarily close (reptiles and mammals, reptiles and birds, fish and tetrapods, humans and primates) and we'll see what's out there. Alternatively, we can also check to see if there are any "links" between taxa that aren't supposed to be evolutionarily close (horses and birds, reptiles and plants, etc.) and see what's out there as well.

It's not just the predictions about what we should see that are important, but what we shouldn't see as well.

What? So you agree there should be trillions of missing links even within a species? Did you see the odds of winning the lotto example? Or can't you be honest here either?

Except for that pesky little fact that we still see populations evolving today...developing new traits, abilities, genes, and even species. Other than that.....

Where? Morphology is not evolution. Mutation is not evolution. Did you know that?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

"Then God said "Let the land produce vegetation"." Sounds like evolution to me.

Sounds like someone planted a garden to me:

"Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east". (Gen 2:8)

 

[judd]

. there is still time. just pray for wings and u will get it.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

:lol:

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

. there is still time. just pray for wings and u will get it.

AHHAAA!!! ... will start now ... and I am going to be specific , I want rotating wings like a helicopter so I can hover in one spot .... that way I can fulfill the verse that says ... be still and Know that I am God

My head is starting to itch .... I think a rotor shaft is trying to poke out.

 

[River Jordan]

KingJ,

Man...you are one angry person. Maybe you and I can have a discussion when you've calmed down a bit and can post without accusations and name-calling. Until then however, I see no reason to try and converse with someone who just yells all the time.

Sounds like someone planted a garden to me:

"Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east". (Gen 2:8)

So if I say "I planted a garden this spring", that means I created all the plants that are in it?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

So if I say "I planted a garden this spring", that means I created all the plants that are in it?

No, but it certainly doesn't mean that they evolved. You argued that the word "let" implies that God just sat and watched as life evolved all by itself without any intervention from him. This verse not only says that he planted the garden of Eden, he also "put" the man there:

"Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."

 

[River Jordan]

No, but it certainly doesn't mean that they evolved. You argued that the word "let" implies that God just sat and watched as life evolved all by itself without any intervention from him. This verse not only says that he planted the garden of Eden, he also "put" the man there:

"Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."

None of that translates to "therefore evolution cannot have happened". And that's a good thing, because we know for a fact that it does.

 

[KingJ]

KingJ,

Man...you are one angry person. Maybe you and I can have a discussion when you've calmed down a bit and can post without accusations and name-calling. Until then however, I see no reason to try and converse with someone who just yells all the time.

Tell me when you respect God's word. Then we can discuss. Until then we are night and day.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

None of that translates to "therefore evolution cannot have happened". And that's a good thing, because we know for a fact that it does.

Well that's the problem. You need a verse that says "evolution didn't happen". Otherwise you see it as a big invitation to wedge whatever you want into scripture, which is exactly the way all false teachings somehow infiltrate the church. I was raised by occultists who did the same thing. They swallowed the subtle old "Did God really say?" lie that we all can read about in Genesis 3. It is the same lie used over and over again.

Who do you think Adam's parents were?

Was his father a humanoid just a bit hairier that Adam?
Was he just one mutation away from being human?

Is that what you Believe?

 

[River Jordan]

Well that's the problem. You need a verse that says "evolution didn't happen".

Not at all. That evolution happens and has happened is self-evident in the world that God created.

I realize that you have convinced yourself that the reason the scientific community has agreed on that fact for over a century is that they're victims of a "grand delusion", but that's just wishful thinking. I'm in that community of scientists, and I see how we go about our work every day. The simple fact is the reason evolutionary theory is foundational to all the earth and life scientists is for no other reason than that's what the evidence shows. That's really all there is to it.

When I compare that to scripture where it uses a specific Hebrew style (a jussive) when it vaguely describes how God created, it matches up with the reality all around us.

Haven't you ever noticed all the ridiculous hoops young-earth creationism has to jump through just to adhere to a narrow reading of scripture? Entire continents moving across the globe in short periods of time (and just wave away all the necessary consequences)? It's just a coincidence that all the isotopes that decay via entirely different mechanisms just happen to point to the same "millions of years"? The genetic errors between taxa are just wild coincidences (or God somehow made them that way)? Shoot, even on this forum you have people arguing that God deliberately created pathogens with the abilities necessary to infect, kill, and cause unimaginable suffering...even in babies?

The fact that creationists have to resort to obviously (and easily documented) dishonest tactics like quote mining should tell you something!

You see my point here? If God really did create the universe as YEC insists, then it should be trivially easy to demonstrate that with actual evidence from that universe. There shouldn't be any need to engage in the absurd and dishonest behaviors that are readily found in the movement.

That's what sealed it for me on this issue. One side fully embraced all the data, all the evidence, and all the scripture, and made reasonable, logical arguments. The other side denied most of the data, most of the evidence, insisted on only one narrow reading of scripture, and engaged in absurd and dishonest tactics along the way.

I was raised by occultists who did the same thing.

Really? What sort of occultists?

Who do you think Adam's parents were?

Was his father a humanoid just a bit hairier that Adam?
Was he just one mutation away from being human?

Is that what you Believe?

The story of Adam and Eve is not about their physical evolution (unless you believe Eve is a hermaphroditic clone). It's about humanity reaching a point of knowledge and accountability and God "breathing" into us a soul.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Well that's the problem. You need a verse that says "evolution didn't happen". Otherwise you see it as a big invitation to wedge whatever you want into scripture, which is exactly the way all false teachings somehow infiltrate the church. I was raised by occultists who did the same thing. They swallowed the subtle old "Did God really say?" lie that we all can read about in Genesis 3. It is the same lie used over and over again.

Who do you think Adam's parents were?
Was his father a humanoid just a bit hairier that Adam?
Was he just one mutation away from being human?

Is that what you Believe?

I think you make a good point (highlighted in red above)

And the next logical question would have to be when did sin and death enter into the picture ??? .... was it the split second after the ape-man stood up and "de-evolved" "his" tail ?

The theory of evolution has endless snags when we try to apply it to God's method of creation.

And if sin was a problem I think God would simply have evolved it away

If a monkey can de-evolve his tail he should be able to do the same with invisible stuff like sin ... it is only a few motor-neurons in the brain that would have to be modified.

I think Jesus would have preferred that too.

Mind you the evolutionist will claim sin cannot be observed under a microscope so it is irrelevant to the discussion

Not a problem for the atheist , but a stumbling block for the Christian evolutionist.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Not at all. That evolution happens and has happened is self-evident in the world that God created.

I realize that you have convinced yourself that the reason the scientific community has agreed on that fact for over a century is that they're victims of a "grand delusion", but that's just wishful thinking. I'm in that community of scientists, and I see how we go about our work every day. The simple fact is the reason evolutionary theory is foundational to all the earth and life scientists is for no other reason than that's what the evidence shows. That's really all there is to it.

It is easy to say that something is "self-evident" after spending years and years of your life being taught that it is. You rest the bulk of your beliefs on what interpreted by other human beings, so how can it possibly be self-evident? Think about it.

When I compare that to scripture where it uses a specific Hebrew style (a jussive) when it vaguely describes how God created, it matches up with the reality all around us.

LOL! Yeah... that's vague all right...

Haven't you ever noticed all the ridiculous hoops young-earth creationism has to jump through just to adhere to a narrow reading of scripture? Entire continents moving across the globe in short periods of time (and just wave away all the necessary consequences)? It's just a coincidence that all the isotopes that decay via entirely different mechanisms just happen to point to the same "millions of years"? The genetic errors between taxa are just wild coincidences (or God somehow made them that way)? Shoot, even on this forum you have people arguing that God deliberately created pathogens with the abilities necessary to infect, kill, and cause unimaginable suffering...even in babies?

Oh come on! Fish becoming amphibians becoming land-dwellers becoming amphibians becoming ocean-dwellers again, at the same time that others hardly change at all. Dinosaurs with soft tissue after being in the ground for 80 million years. Plankton that somehow evolved the ability to make Clouds form, as well as all the other bizarre abilities that evolutionists claim just happened by chance... and creationists are jumping hoops???

You see my point here? If God really did create the universe as YEC insists, then it should be trivially easy to demonstrate that with actual evidence from that universe. There shouldn't be any need to engage in the absurd and dishonest behaviors that are readily found in the movement.

God created the universe as God insists, not creationists. And why would it be trivially easy to demonstrate evidence of a young universe from the universe. Right there you are making a presupposition about how the universe was created.

I don't care about your accusations about dishonesty.. or about weak faith for that matter. There is dishonesty on both sides and I'm not here to kick sand back and fourth. I believe that the Bible is God's word and that eventually we will all be held accountable for who we have put our faith in. If you have anything that disproves the Biblical account scientifically then lay it on the table.

That's what sealed it for me on this issue. One side fully embraced all the data, all the evidence, and all the scripture, and made reasonable, logical arguments. The other side denied most of the data, most of the evidence, insisted on only one narrow reading of scripture, and engaged in absurd and dishonest tactics along the way.

That's just propoganda. Both sides use the same data but with different sets of presuppositions. If you think that creationists are "denying the data" then you are free to explain what you mean by that, but so far all you have been doing is present the conclusions that evolutionists draw and confusing that with "data".

Really? What sort of occultists?

They were spiritualists and teachers of New Age doctrines. They didn't just dabble with these things, they were totally fanatical about it, devoting their entire lives to promoting it around the world. They held seanses in our living room every week.. needless to say it devestated the entire family.

 

[River Jordan]

It is easy to say that something is "self-evident" after spending years and years of your life being taught that it is. You rest the bulk of your beliefs on what interpreted by other human beings, so how can it possibly be self-evident? Think about it.

See? There's the weak creationist approach I was talking about! Knowing very little about me, my background, and my experiences, and without even one iota of supporting evidence, you declare that you know what's really going on, and present yourself as a greater authority on my views than even I am.

So how is it that you know all that about me and my background? Be as specific as you can.

Oh come on! Fish becoming amphibians becoming land-dwellers becoming amphibians becoming ocean-dwellers again, at the same time that others hardly change at all. Dinosaurs with soft tissue after being in the ground for 80 million years. Plankton that somehow evolved the ability to make Clouds form, as well as all the other bizarre abilities that evolutionists claim just happened by chance... and creationists are jumping hoops???

Except there is direct, physical evidence of those things.

So where's the direct physical evidence of tectonic plates flying around the planet? Where's the direct physical evidence that clearly indicates a 6,000 year old universe? Where's the direct physical evidence showing that everything was supernaturally created according to "kinds"? Where's the direct physical evidence showing that humans aren't one bit related to any other life on the planet?

The answer is....there isn't any. All of those things are based on one thing, and one thing only....a fundamentalist reading of scripture. Take that away and the whole idea of young-earth creationism has absolutely no basis.

God created the universe as God insists, not creationists. And why would it be trivially easy to demonstrate evidence of a young universe from the universe. Right there you are making a presupposition about how the universe was created.

If the universe really is 6,000 years old, it should look like a 6,000 year old universe. The fact is, it doesn't in any shape or form.

I don't care about your accusations about dishonesty.. or about weak faith for that matter. There is dishonesty on both sides and I'm not here to kick sand back and fourth. I believe that the Bible is God's word and that eventually we will all be held accountable for who we have put our faith in. If you have anything that disproves the Biblical account scientifically then lay it on the table.

I realize "you don't care" about trivial little things like who's being honest and who's not. But again, if this is all about what you believe the Bible says, why do you spend so much time and effort focusing on the scientific questions? The scientific community concluded that the universe is billions of years old and that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life around us today.....why does that even register on your radar screen? Is your faith so insecure that it needs the endorsement of science?

That's just propoganda. Both sides use the same data but with different sets of presuppositions. If you think that creationists are "denying the data" then you are free to explain what you mean by that, but so far all you have been doing is present the conclusions that evolutionists draw and confusing that with "data".

"That's just propaganda". Hilarious....I guess it must be so because you say it is!

But you do demonstrate why it's pointless to try and discuss this with you. No matter what I post, you just deny it out of hand. Merely declaring "It's propaganda", without any actual support, is sufficient for you to not have to think about it or consider it any more. It's propaganda...because you say so....done.

As far as creationists denying data, they declare it up front. Most young-earth creationist organizations make their members sign "statements of faith", which contain overt statements that when data disagrees with their reading of scripture, the data is always wrong.

They were spiritualists and teachers of New Age doctrines. They didn't just dabble with these things, they were totally fanatical about it, devoting their entire lives to promoting it around the world. They held seanses in our living room every week.. needless to say it devestated the entire family.

Wow. How did you manage to escape that?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

See? There's the weak creationist approach I was talking about! Knowing very little about me, my background, and my experiences, and without even one iota of supporting evidence, you declare that you know what's really going on, and present yourself as a greater authority on my views than even I am.

What? Where did I claim anything like that? I was just pointing out the fact that most of what you know about evolution and the age of the earth has been handed over to you by others and that practically ALL OF US have been indoctrinated since childhood to believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions and millions of years ago and that we came from ape-like creatures.

I made no comment about having any knowledge about why you believe the way you do, and I find it hypocritical of you, after seeing all your biased comments about creationists, to react that way.

So how is it that you know all that about me and my background? Be as specific as you can.

I never said it was all about you, so what am I supposed to be specific about?

Except there is direct, physical evidence of those things.

Where?

Arranging fossils in a specific sequence is hardly "direct, physical evidence".

Assuming that greater selection pressure for animals that undergo huge morphological changes than those who show hardly any change is not direct, physical evidence.

Assuming that evolution selected plankton that had cloud-forming abilities while weeding out plankton that doesn't have cloud-forming abilities is not direct, physical evidence.

Assuming that dinosaur bones somehow have the ability to preserve tissue for 80 million years is not direct, physical evidence.

So WHERE exactly IS this direct, physical evidence?

So where's the direct physical evidence of tectonic plates flying around the planet? Where's the direct physical evidence that clearly indicates a 6,000 year old universe? Where's the direct physical evidence showing that everything was supernaturally created according to "kinds"? Where's the direct physical evidence showing that humans aren't one bit related to any other life on the planet?

I never claimed that there was.

The answer is....there isn't any. All of those things are based on one thing, and one thing only....a fundamentalist reading of scripture. Take that away and the whole idea of young-earth creationism has absolutely no basis.

Oh, you mean like ... "did God really say?".

If the universe really is 6,000 years old, it should look like a 6,000 year old universe. The fact is, it doesn't in any shape or form.

As I have already pointed out, the universe doesn't "look" any specific age. You have been TOLD that the universe is old, THAT is why you think it looks old.

And how exactly does a 6,000 year old universe look?

I realize "you don't care" about trivial little things like who's being honest and who's not.

I DO care about honesty, and the fact that I dislike the way you are dishonestly trying to twist my words around is evidence of that. In the context of this discussion I would rather deal with the issues than have to respond to your generalizations. If you have specific cases where creationists have used dishonest tactics then SURE present your case and we can discuss it.

But again, if this is all about what you believe the Bible says, why do you spend so much time and effort focusing on the scientific questions? The scientific community concluded that the universe is billions of years old and that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life around us today.....why does that even register on your radar screen? Is your faith so insecure that it needs the endorsement of science?

I have already gone throught that. Why, if what the Bible says is true, should I avoid speaking about science?? I became aware of this debate years and years ago and decided to have a look at what was being said by both sides. How is doing so evidence of insecurity? Could it possibly occur to you that I am not involved in these discussing because I need verification for my "insecure" faith but because I am concerned for people who are being deceived by evolutionists.

As far as creationists denying data, they declare it up front. Most young-earth creationist organizations make their members sign "statements of faith", which contain overt statements that when data disagrees with their reading of scripture, the data is always wrong.

The statement of faith there says absolutly NOTHING about denying data.

Wow. How did you manage to escape that?

You have no idea how hard it was. I rejected Christianity vehemently and my head was saturated with what they had taught me. Actually it was the Bible itelf as well as some miraculous things God did to confirm his word for me that turned my life around. That is why I believe in it the way I do.

 

[River Jordan]

What? Where did I claim anything like that? I was just pointing out the fact that most of what you know about evolution and the age of the earth has been handed over to you by others and that practically ALL OF US have been indoctrinated since childhood to believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions and millions of years ago and that we came from ape-like creatures.

I made no comment about having any knowledge about why you believe the way you do, and I find it hypocritical of you, after seeing all your biased comments about creationists, to react that way.

Well, let's look. Here's what you've said not just in general, but about me and my background specifically...

It is easy to say that something is "self-evident" after spending years and years of your life being taught that it is.

You rest the bulk of your beliefs on what interpreted by other human beings

most of what you know about evolution and the age of the earth has been handed over to you by others


I know what my background is. I know what my education was like. I know what lab work I've done. I know what field studies I've done. I know what fossils I've held in my hands. I know what genetic surveys I've done. I know what papers I've read and reviewed. I know what scientists I've met and talked to about their work.

When I mentioned all of this to you before, you responded...

I don't care what you have done. You have already been programmed to accept what is "valid" and what is "invalid"

Do you see the consistent theme in all that? You know better than me what my background and experiences were. Apparently I'm just some poor deluded robot who's been programmed and indoctrinated to believe in evolution, and I'm too stupid to realize what was going on. My professors and colleagues could have told me that the earth is made of chocolate and the moon made of frosting, and lil' old me would have just gone right along with it all.

And I'm wondering too....what does that say about all my colleagues and professors? Are all my colleagues just as stupid and gullible as I am? Are my professors and supervisors evil? Do they know what's going on? What about those biotech firms that hire these people to do research? And those oil companies who hire people to find reserves? All of that is based on old-earth and/or evolution. Are they in on this too, or are they also deluded?

IOW, is this the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind, or is it the greatest case of collective incompetence of all time?

Arranging fossils in a specific sequence is hardly "direct, physical evidence".

Assuming that greater selection pressure for animals that undergo huge morphological changes than those who show hardly any change is not direct, physical evidence.

Assuming that evolution selected plankton that had cloud-forming abilities while weeding out plankton that doesn't have cloud-forming abilities is not direct, physical evidence.

Assuming that dinosaur bones somehow have the ability to preserve tissue for 80 million years is not direct, physical evidence.

So WHERE exactly IS this direct, physical evidence?

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?

I never claimed that there was.

Let's not play games here. Do you believe that there is direct physical evidence supporting young-earth creationism?

As I have already pointed out, the universe doesn't "look" any specific age. You have been TOLD that the universe is old, THAT is why you think it looks old.

And how exactly does a 6,000 year old universe look?

And there's that consistent theme again. I'm just a dumb programmed robot who's been told what to think and never even thought to question any of it.

A 6,000 year old universe would have starlight no more than 6,000 years away. Radiometric dating would either give wildly inconsistent results across methods, or would consistently give results of less than 10,000 years. Ice core layers and lake varves would only show 6,000 annual layers. Human history wouldn't go back more than 6,000 years. And so on...

But we don't see any of that....at all. If a person was transported here from another universe and tasked with figuring out how old ours is, there wouldn't be any scientific result that would cause her to conclude our universe is only 6,000 years old.

I DO care about honesty, and the fact that I dislike the way you are dishonestly trying to twist my words around is evidence of that. In the context of this discussion I would rather deal with the issues than have to respond to your generalizations. If you have specific cases where creationists have used dishonest tactics then SURE present your case and we can discuss it.

There are entire archives of documented examples of creationists quote mining the work of scientists. This blatantly dishonest tactic is what caused S. Gould to state, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms."

I have already gone throught that. Why, if what the Bible says is true, should I avoid speaking about science?? I became aware of this debate years and years ago and decided to have a look at what was being said by both sides. How is doing so evidence of insecurity? Could it possibly occur to you that I am not involved in these discussing because I need verification for my "insecure" faith but because I am concerned for people who are being deceived by evolutionists.

Could any result of science change your belief in young-earth creationism?

The statement of faith there says absolutly NOTHING about denying data.

From AiG's statement of faith...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

IOW any data that is contrary to how they read scripture is wrong by mere definition.

You have no idea how hard it was. I rejected Christianity vehemently and my head was saturated with what they had taught me. Actually it was the Bible itelf as well as some miraculous things God did to confirm his word for me that turned my life around. That is why I believe in it the way I do.

That's an incredible story. Thanks for sharing.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Well, let's look. Here's what you've said not just in general, but about me and my background specifically...

It is easy to say that something is "self-evident" after spending years and years of your life being taught that it is.

You rest the bulk of your beliefs on what interpreted by other human beings

most of what you know about evolution and the age of the earth has been handed over to you by others


I know what my background is. I know what my education was like. I know what lab work I've done. I know what field studies I've done. I know what fossils I've held in my hands. I know what genetic surveys I've done. I know what papers I've read and reviewed. I know what scientists I've met and talked to about their work.

When I mentioned all of this to you before, you responded...

I don't care what you have done. You have already been programmed to accept what is "valid" and what is "invalid"

Do you see the consistent theme in all that? You know better than me what my background and experiences were. Apparently I'm just some poor deluded robot who's been programmed and indoctrinated to believe in evolution, and I'm too stupid to realize what was going on. My professors and colleagues could have told me that the earth is made of chocolate and the moon made of frosting, and lil' old me would have just gone right along with it all.

And I'm wondering too....what does that say about all my colleagues and professors? Are all my colleagues just as stupid and gullible as I am? Are my professors and supervisors evil? Do they know what's going on? What about those biotech firms that hire these people to do research? And those oil companies who hire people to find reserves? All of that is based on old-earth and/or evolution. Are they in on this too, or are they also deluded?

IOW, is this the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind, or is it the greatest case of collective incompetence of all time?

Well that's was a long, emotional outburst but nothing you've said here escapes the fact that ALL of us in our studies largely deal with the interpretation of data, rather than the data itself. If you want to deny that obvious fact then do so.

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?

Of course, it would. I approached this subject with an open mind. I have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say. I have been on BOTH sides of the fence, initially was wavering back and forth until I saw a pattern in the way evolutionists were using their arguments. They were calling creationists liars, but every time I looked at what the "lie" was supposed to be it turned out that it was because what THEY claimed was the "truth" was something based on an evolutionist presupposition. Most of them were just parroting the same prejudices and using the same weak arguments.

Let's not play games here. Do you believe that there is direct physical evidence supporting young-earth creationism?

I'm NOT playing games! I told you in the other thread, no scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe. In OTHER WORDS, there is NO DIRECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that supports either a young earth or an old earth.

And there's that consistent theme again. I'm just a dumb programmed robot who's been told what to think and never even thought to question any of it.

I never called you "dumb". I try as much a I can not to resort to insults.

A 6,000 year old universe would have starlight no more than 6,000 years away.

Do you want me to point out the presuppositions you are using here?

Let me ask you something. Does God have the ability to create two objects simultaneously, or does he have to create one before the other?

Radiometric dating would either give wildly inconsistent results across methods, or would consistently give results of less than 10,000 years.

Not only is radiometric dating based on a uniformitarian presupposition, it DOES have inconsistencies across methods:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

Ice core layers and lake varves would only show 6,000 annual layers.

Here the presupposition is that all layers are annual. We KNOW that that is not always the case.

Human history wouldn't go back more than 6,000 years. And so on...

What human history are you talking about?

But we don't see any of that....at all. If a person was transported here from another universe and tasked with figuring out how old ours is, there wouldn't be any scientific result that would cause her to conclude our universe is only 6,000 years old.

You assume here that the age of the universe is available for "figuring out". In any case, if such a person had been taught that only naturalistic explanations are viable for calculating the age of the universe then why should I let HIS opinion effect me?

There are entire archives of documented examples of creationists quote mining the work of scientists. This blatantly dishonest tactic is what caused S. Gould to state, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms."

You are using TalkOrigins to judge whether or not a quotemine is dishonest???

Isn't that the same TalkOrigins that quotemined ICR's statement of faith?

Could any result of science change your belief in young-earth creationism?

I have already answered that question. But let me ask you: could any result of science change your belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead?

From AiG's statement of faith...
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
IOW any data that is contrary to how they read scripture is wrong by mere definition.

Well, here's that quotemine I was talking about. Let's have a look at it then. Is the word DATA used ANYWHERE in that text? No! Is it used ANYWHERE in ICR's statement of faith? Again, no! And what DOES it say???

"no APPARENT, PERCEIVED or CLAIMED evidence..."

Get back to me when you think you can prove that apparent, perceived or claimed evidence is equivalent to DATA!

That's an incredible story. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks, that's only a minute fraction of it of couse, but it would take way too long to tell the whole thing.

 

[River Jordan]

Well that's was a long, emotional outburst but nothing you've said here escapes the fact that ALL of us in our studies largely deal with the interpretation of data, rather than the data itself. If you want to deny that obvious fact then do so.

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?

Of course, it would. I approached this subject with an open mind. I have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say. I have been on BOTH sides of the fence, initially was wavering back and forth until I saw a pattern in the way evolutionists were using their arguments. They were calling creationists liars, but every time I looked at what the "lie" was supposed to be it turned out that it was because what THEY claimed was the "truth" was something based on an evolutionist presupposition. Most of them were just parroting the same prejudices and using the same weak arguments.

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?

In OTHER WORDS, there is NO DIRECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that supports either a young earth or an old earth.

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 never called you "dumb". I try as much a I can not to resort to insults.

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

Let me ask you something. Does God have the ability to create two objects simultaneously, or does he have to create one before the other?

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.

Not only is radiometric dating based on a uniformitarian presupposition, it DOES have inconsistencies across methods:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

First, I didn't say it would be 100% absolutely consistent every single time it's used. No method of anything meets that criterion.

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.

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?

AiG's next two claimed "assumptions" are...

"The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed."

Are those just mere assumptions? Do scientists just shrug their shoulders and say "Yeah, we just assumed that the decay rates haven't varied significantly"? Of course not. Scientists have tried subjecting isotopes to extreme temperatures, pressures, chemicals, and magnetic fields, and nothing has budged.

Not only that, but different isotopes decay via entirely different mechanisms. So creationists also need to explain why isotopes that decay by fundamentally different mechanisms are apparently affected in the same way such that they generate congruent results.

Why do you think AiG doesn't tell its readers about this information?

Then AiG cites S. Austin's sending of newly formed rocks from Mt St Helens to a lab and getting back very old results. However, AiG doesn't tell you that the lab he sent the samples to stated right up front that their equipment is unable to give accurate dates for materials less than 2 million years old. Not only that, but the methodology used requires homogeneous samples, and Austin's report apparently shows images of non-homogeneous samples. But AiG doesn't tell its readers that, does it?

Looks like we've figured out which side isn't quite giving the entire story.

Here the presupposition is that all layers are annual. We KNOW that that is not always 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.

What human history are you talking about?

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

You are using TalkOrigins to judge whether or not a quotemine is dishonest???

Isn't that the same TalkOrigins that quotemined ICR's statement of faith?

Please demonstrate where any of those alleged quote mines aren't what is claimed. Otherwise you're just waving your arms.

But let me ask you: could any result of science change your belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead?

No.

Well, here's that quotemine I was talking about. Let's have a look at it then. Is the word DATA used ANYWHERE in that text? No! Is it used ANYWHERE in ICR's statement of faith? Again, no! And what DOES it say???

"no APPARENT, PERCEIVED or CLAIMED evidence..."

Get back to me when you think you can prove that apparent, perceived or claimed evidence is equivalent to DATA!

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: