Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[gnostic]

That is the true debate. Abiogenesis v creation. Evolution is the process that created diversity after life had originated and is not an alternative to divine creation, though creationists do not seem to get that distinction.

Yes, true.

But it is not just that - it isn’t just about the very first life on Earth.

Creationism is all about the creation of man, hence creation of Adam. They wanted them (“creationists”) to be descendants to the one created “special” - the first human who was magically transformed from lifeless dust or lifeless clay.

This myth of dust-into-man is preferred over humans being in the family of the “great apes”. And removing their “specialness” scared the craps out of them.

But science of evolution isn’t about their personal preferences, but that humans of Homo sapiens evolved from something earlier species - the Homo heidelbergensis. And the H. heidelbergensis evolved from older Homo erectus or more precisely from Homo ergaster. And so on.

The Homo heidelbergensis was most likely the common ancestor to the Neanderthals and the Denisovans (Homo denisova).

Creationists all preferred to ignore the existence of erectus, ergaster, heidelbergensis, etc, or to explain away the older species that were “us”.

That’s what creationists feared most - that we aren’t so special.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

At least science is looking and to my knowledge succeeded in creating life in the laboratory.

Please, share that knowledge by supplying references.

 

[Audie]

I think people often waste their time discussing evolution versus creation when the more important and interesting question is how did any life begin 'abiogenesis'. Here the scientists have no answers just 'fanciful' maybe's.

The apostrophe is used for possessive or
a contaction not to pluralize
That is 4th grade stuff.

 

[Audie]

Stephen Jones is an anti-creationist.

No informed person with intellectusl integrity is
a creationist.

Nor are they astrologers.

That does not make the primary identity of folks
at NASA "anti astrologers".

 

[Audie]

What problems? Be specific.




Creationists are infamous for quote mining. So much so that one website has "The quote mine project" where they take case where creationist lied by doing so:

Quote Mine Project: Evolution of the Quote Mine Project

You can click on the various links where it gives examples of quotes given out of context and gives the full context to show how the creationists are being dishonest.



And where does he make the statement that life could not have arisen from RNA?

Ignored will be your request for examples

 

[Audie]

There is a current theory called the RNA world hypothesis which claim that maybe self-replicating RNA molecules reproduced rapidly before the evolution of DNA and proteins. However, there is no consensus amongst the scientific community as to the validity of this hypothesis according to molecular biologist Professor G. F. Joyce (2018) who states many scientists have come to the conclusion life couldn’t have started with RNA.

I know scientists are trying 'all ways' to try and solve the problem of chirality,theories seem to change every year, I am not a scientist but I do try to visit the NASA website every so often, as I said lots of maybe's, lots of disagreements.

NASA?
The space agency does research or publishes
papers on advanced molecular biology?

Theories "seem to change evety year" only to someone
who just makes that up. Again, you cannot produce an example.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

What problems? Be specific.




Creationists are infamous for quote mining. So much so that one website has "The quote mine project" where they take case where creationist lied by doing so:

Quote Mine Project: Evolution of the Quote Mine Project

You can click on the various links where it gives examples of quotes given out of context and gives the full context to show how the creationists are being dishonest.



And where does he make the statement that life could not have arisen from R

 

[Sandra Jayne]

NASA?
The space agency does research or publishes
papers on advanced molecular biology?

Theories "seem to change evety year" only to someone
who just makes that up. Again, you cannot produce an example.

Yes NASA actually employ astrobiologist's who are exploring asteroids to try and explain the chirality problem.

Creationists may misquote but I am discovering that many here are bullies, some of us do have a life outside of this forum and other interests on other forums.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

No informed person with intellectusl integrity is
a creationist.

Nor are they astrologers.

That does not make the primary identity of folks
at NASA "anti astrologers".

Perhaps some of us just have integrity.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Yes, true.

But it is not just that - it isn’t just about the very first life on Earth.

Creationism is all about the creation of man, hence creation of Adam. They wanted them (“creationists”) to be descendants to the one created “special” - the first human who was magically transformed from lifeless dust or lifeless clay.

This myth of dust-into-man is preferred over humans being in the family of the “great apes”. And removing their “specialness” scared the craps out of them.

But science of evolution isn’t about their personal preferences, but that humans of Homo sapiens evolved from something earlier species - the Homo heidelbergensis. And the H. heidelbergensis evolved from older Homo erectus or more precisely from Homo ergaster. And so on.

The Homo heidelbergensis was most likely the common ancestor to the Neanderthals and the Denisovans (Homo denisova).

Creationists all preferred to ignore the existence of erectus, ergaster, heidelbergensis, etc, or to explain away the older species that were “us”.

That’s what creationists feared most - that we aren’t so special.

What strange assumptions are made about creationists there is nothing you have written that makes me fearful.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

The apostrophe is used for possessive or
a contaction not to pluralize
That is 4th grade stuff.

Oh my goodness!!! How sad.

 

[gnostic]

What strange assumptions are made about creationists there is nothing you have written that makes me fearful.

Science is about personal belief or personal preference.

But it is apparent that creationists favor their myth over reality of nature.

The fears that creationists have is not being “special”, not being able to go to Heaven, and not be able to live forever.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Ignored will be your request for examples

S

What problems? Be specific.




Creationists are infamous for quote mining. So much so that one website has "The quote mine project" where they take case where creationist lied by doing so:

Quote Mine Project: Evolution of the Quote Mine Project

You can click on the various links where it gives examples of quotes given out of context and gives the full context to show how the creationists are being dishonest.

Seems creationists are not the only ones who can be dishonest, scientists are pretty good to at it as well.
List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data



And where does he make the statement that life could not have arisen from RNA?

 

[Dell]

I think people often waste their time discussing evolution versus creation when the more important and interesting question is how did any life begin 'abiogenesis'. Here the scientists have no answers just 'fanciful' maybe's.

I'll hand you that argument... I possibly could see a highly intelligent civilization creating or propagating the beginning life as we know it on earth. But the Bibles version of the creator is total nonsense, an obvious ancient idea passed on for centuries to answer the meaning of life and power.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould labeled the fossil record an “embarrassment.” This is why Gould and Niles Eldredge had to come up with their fanciful theory of “punctuated equilibrium,” otherwise known as “punk eek.”
Of course there is the Cambrian period when there was a huge explosion of life forms whereas below there are vast thicknesses of sediment where one would expect to find the ancestors of the Cambrian forms. Not only are they not found the sediment is mostly barren of all life.

I know scientist's are trying to come up with explanations for this but the excuses I have read are very weak, if they were honest they would just admit they don't know how this could be.

 

[Audie]

Oh my goodness!!! How sad.

You will be ok dont take it too hard!

 

[Audie]

Perhaps some of us just have integrity.

Lots of people do, but it is impossible to be a
well informed and intellectually honest yec.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

I'll hand you that argument... I possibly could see a highly intelligent civilization creating or propagating the beginning life as we know it on earth. But the Bibles version of the creator is total nonsense, an obvious ancient idea passed on for centuries to answer the meaning of life and power.

I'm pretty sure there is a creator and I don't think I'mthe type to

Science is about personal belief or personal preference.

But it is apparent that creationists favor their myth over reality of nature.

The fears that creationists have is not being “special”, not being able to go to Heaven, and not be able to live forever.

Sorry, still not fearful, if as you seem to believe when we die there is nothing then none of us will know we didn't go to heaven or that we are not going to live forever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

S

Interesting reply. I don't know how to respond.

Edit: Oh, I see you buried your reply in my quote. Sorry, that is a Tu Quoque fallacy that has nothing to do with our discussion. Yes, one can find some, but not very many, dishonest scientists. I don't think that you can find one honest "creation scientist".

Also do you seriously think that those were problems with the theory of evolution? They weren't. It appears our new poster is approaching fractal wrongness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould labeled the fossil record an “embarrassment.” This is why Gould and Niles Eldredge had to come up with their fanciful theory of “punctuated equilibrium,” otherwise known as “punk eek.”
Of course there is the Cambrian period when there was a huge explosion of life forms whereas below there are vast thicknesses of sediment where one would expect to find the ancestors of the Cambrian forms. Not only are they not found the sediment is mostly barren of all life.

I know scientist's are trying to come up with explanations for this but the excuses I have read are very weak, if they were honest they would just admit they don't know how this could be.

Again, such claims are worthless without a valid source.