Evolution is no more science than Creationism is.

[Willamena]

There's no defense against literalism.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Luke Wolf said, in reference to Luke_17:2's position:

I find it scary to even acknowledge than only a few years ago, I would have fully agreed with you. I am thankfull every day I opened my eyes. I pray you do the same.

I too was in a similar state of mind only a few years ago. I now accept evolution as an accurate theory. It is amazing what a little education will do.

 

[MaddLlama]

I just want to repeat something from the other thread, for those of you creationists who aren't following it.

Why spend so much time trying to disprove evolution? Even if you could win the nobel prize for proving to the world (with real science, and not Kent Hovind bullcrap) that evolution is wrong, it still wouldn't prove that Creationism is correct. In order for any scientific community to consider the theory of creation as correct, it needs to have it's own scientific evidence that follows the scientific method. Just saying "evolution is wrong" does not logically lead to "creationism is correct". More than likely, if we ever did discover that evolution is wrong, scientists would come up with a new theory, and that one probably wouldn't have a thing to do with creationist principles either. So, why waste your time trying to undermine evolutionary theory? Why not spend your time trying to use scientific evidence to prove your own theory?
Let's start with an easy one. Can we observe creationism happening? As in, is there any fossil evidence, or anything that we can see, and can see happening more than once that supports the idea that everything on earth was created?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I too was in a similar state of mind only a few years ago. I now accept evolution as an accurate theory. It is amazing what a little education will do.

True. Being uneducated about evolution does make it seem like a science fiction fantasy.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Like everyone else in this thread I have to respond to this by saying “I don’t know”. I say that proudly, it is very important in science (and in life) that we have the personal integrity to say, “I don’t know”. If we are afraid to say those words, then we can learn nothing.

That's my point. If we don't know where the matter that caused the explosion, that brought forth galaxies, that formed the stars and planets, and then formed us came from, then we have a very bad theory. You say that all matter in the universe exploded 15 billion years ago, but you don't know where the matter came from; I say that God created the earth 6,000 years ago (as long as we've recorded human civilization), and I don't know where God came from. Let's study God: God is someone not bound by time, space, matter; if He was, he wouldn't be God. In other words, He's always been there. So I can explain where God came from based on the English meaning of the word, but you can't explain where some mysterious matter came from. Whoever/whatever created the universe would have to be higher than those natural laws that operate it because, if not, being bound by those laws would make them unable to create matter. I Law of Thermodynamics states that we cannot create or destroy matter: so whoever created the universe would have to be higher than that law. Do you get my point?

P.S. Evolutionist Christians: how do you explain where God came from?

I would also like to say that this has noting at all to do with the theory of evolution, but you (and your personal friend Hovind) are using an unusual definition of evolution. When most people talk about the theory of evolution they are referring to the development of biological life-forms.

Actually, Hovind has repeatedly in his seminars told those who deate define at the beginning of the debate which evolution we're talking about. I forgot, and so we quiblled about the meaning of evolution. I was referring to all of them (excepting Micro, and Macro), but you were referring specifically to Macro and organic.

Why would they not? Nothing about the way that galaxies or solar systems are formed dictates that all bodies must spin the same way. If someone has told you that they must spin it the same direction, you have been misled. These planets and moons that spin in opposite ways are not violating any laws of physics. It is true that total angular motion must be preserved, but that does not prevent individual objects from spinning in opposite ways as long as other objects in the system compensate.

This comes from NASA’s Cosmicopia web page.

Calling Uranus shrapnel is idiotic because of its size. Calling Venus shrapnel is equally idiotic. The Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum applies univerally unless an outside force is encoutered (i.e. resistance). And this scientist you quote does not explain how it's possible for shrapnel to miraculously turn itself in the opposite direction.

I am not sure what you are referring to here, I have read through the thread and I am still not sure. Various methods of radio-active dating indicate that the age of the earth is approximately 4.52 billion years old.

I was referring to the magnetic field that is weakening. I posted the formula way back.

Here are the problems with carbon dating.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

The primary method of dating, carbon dating, is flawed


From the link-

Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Something that is 300 years old for example. But it is far from an exact Science. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. Thirty thousand years is about the limit. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. It is much younger than that. (1)
Because of the earth's declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth's atmosphere.
The man who invented Carbon dating knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. He assumed that the earth was millions of years old, and that it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium. (1)
- What does this mean? It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old! (1)
Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago. (1) Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did.

This deals with carbon dating. Click on the link to see others.

This is nothing more than a case of Hovind getting the math wrong. If you use the correct figures and do the calculations correctly you find that the moon was never closer than 151 000 miles to the earth.

I furnished the formulas, now you furnish yours, and then prove to me that mine is erroneous.
More to come later. Now, I'm tired-it's been a busy day.

 

[Prometheus]

I say that God created the earth 6,000 years ago (as long as we've recorded human civilization), and I don't know where God came from.

You believe this despite that we have observable evidence that the earth is at least 11,700 years old?

I knew you had it out for evolution, but I wasn't aware you were a young-earth creationist. That just makes my job much harder.

 

[gmelrod]

That's my point. If we don't know where the matter that caused the explosion, that brought forth galaxies, that formed the stars and planets, and then formed us came from, then we have a very bad theory. You say that all matter in the universe exploded 15 billion years ago, but you don't know where the matter came from; I say that God created the earth 6,000 years ago (as long as we've recorded human civilization), and I don't know where God came from. Let's study God: God is someone not bound by time, space, matter; if He was, he wouldn't be God. In other words, He's always been there. So I can explain where God came from based on the English meaning of the word, but you can't explain where some mysterious matter came from. Whoever/whatever created the universe would have to be higher than those natural laws that operate it because, if not, being bound by those laws would make them unable to create matter. I Law of Thermodynamics states that we cannot create or destroy matter: so whoever created the universe would have to be higher than that law. Do you get my point?

P.S. Evolutionist Christians: how do you explain where God came from?

Since for you God's existance is proved by the fact that he always has existed (a circular argument if ever I heard one.) will you accept the existance of the matter whice exploded. There is a theory called the big bang big crunch theory which says that the universe has existed eternaly as a series of expansions and contractions. Each expansion eventauly reachs a point where the outward force cannot overcome the pull of gravity to the explosion starts to implode. The aceleration due to gravity forces the matter into an infinitly small mass which then explodes again in an endless cycle. So just like God the matter that makes up the universe has always existed and so does exist. Interestingly enough this theory follows the law of conservation of energy. The universe as an equation of mass and energy balances out. But within that equality some finite ordered sytems do appear.

Speaking of Thermodynamics your charecterisation of the first law is not quite correct matter can be destroyed in a sense that it can be converted into energy. This is the fundamental nature of nuclear physics.

To put the ball back in your court how do you account for fossils in the earth. A process that takes longer then 6,000 years. Or the petrification of forests. Also how is it that we can see stars in the sky though it has takes sometimes millions of years for that light to reach us. Did God create the light already in route? If so then for what reason. Is there virtue in knowing that far away stars are there. Or did he seek to decieve us. If so then why give a literal (to you) account of his actions.

 

[Luke_17:2]

You believe this despite that we have observable evidence that the earth is at least 11,700 years old?

I knew you had it out for evolution, but I wasn't aware you were a young-earth creationist. That just makes my job much harder.

If the evidence you're referring to is carbon dating, then I've already posted the problems with it.

 

[Willamena]

If the evidence you're referring to is carbon dating, then I've already posted the problems with it.

Do you know there are other ways of dating, and that carbon dating alone is often not relied upon?
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

 

[Runlikethewind]

If the evidence you're referring to is carbon dating, then I've already posted the problems with it.

I think he is talking about tree rings. But let me guess, there is a problem with that method of dating too right?

 

[Luke_17:2]

Since for you God's existance is proved by the fact that he always has existed (a circular argument if ever I heard one.) will you accept the existance of the matter whice exploded

That is not what I said. I said that, if there is a God (obviously I believe God exists), then he'd have to be higher than those laws which everything He created lives by. He transcends all natural laws because He created them; those include the laws regarding beginnings, and ends.

The matter that supposedly exploded is not above the laws; it operates by them. God is above the laws: he created them. He transcends the universe, and is not physical. The same way we make laws against murder, but being imperfect, we can break them. All the while, having free will, we can choose to abide by them. If we created AI, then we'd set laws for our creation (indirectly God's) that they're not above. A more current example is our current computer technology: we can override them if all else fails.

There is a theory called the big bang big crunch theory which says that the universe has existed eternaly as a series of expansions and contractions

Unless you believe that the universe is god itself; it would always have to have an ultimate beginning. Because the universe operates by laws it can't disobey, it would have to have beginning. And, without a God, its beginning would e hard given the I Law of Thermodynamics.

Speaking of Thermodynamics your charecterisation of the first law is not quite correct matter can be destroyed in a sense that it can be converted into energy. This is the fundamental nature of nuclear physics.

You can't convert matter into energy. You can add energy, but it needs a harness lest it cause destruction. For example, you add energy by bombing, but the only thing it does is cause destruction.

To put the ball back in your court how do you account for fossils in the earth. A process that takes longer then 6,000 years. Or the petrification of forests.

It doesn't take millions of years to petrify. And large amounts of forest around Mt. St. Helens was petrified by the lava. I have my very own petrified pickles. If you go to a Creation Science museum, you'll find many examples of petrification that obviously happened recently.

Also how is it that we can see stars in the sky though it has takes sometimes millions of years for that light to reach us. Did God create the light already in route?

You have me there. I don't think God creates ligh en-rout. There is the theory that light is slowing down, but it's just a theory. If it is indeed slowing down, it would hurt the idea of an old universe.

Another question, the Earth is slowing down; how do you explain the fact that the Earth would have been travelling to fast to have life if dinasour life was around 70 million years ago?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It doesn't take millions of years to petrify. And large amounts of forest around Mt. St. Helens was petrified by the lava. I have my very own petrified pickles. If you go to a Creation Science museum, you'll find many examples of petrification that obviously happened recently.

Maybe, but you not all the petrified wood can be attributed to lava. I have been to a petrified forest around South Dakota/Colorado area. All of thier petrified wood is from that area.

 

[camanintx]

I was referring to the magnetic field that is weakening. I posted the formula way back.

Is that what the whole weakening atmosphere is about? Why didn't you say so earlier?

Well, you can toss your formula out the window, Luke. The whole magnetic field decay argument was throughly trashed over a decade ago.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Is that what the whole weakening atmosphere is about? Why didn't you say so earlier?

Well, you can toss your formula out the window, Luke. The whole magnetic field decay argument was throughly trashed over a decade ago.

How so? The magnetic field is obviously decaying, so what do they put forward?gg

 

[Luke_17:2]

Maybe, but you not all the petrified wood can be attributed to lava. I have been to a petrified forest around South Dakota/Colorado area. All of thier petrified wood is from that area.

I'm sure. But it doesn't take millions of years to petrify.

 

[Runlikethewind]

You can't convert matter into energy.

Tell that to Einstein. Ever here of an an atomic bomb? Radioactive matter is converted to pure energy on the basis of Einstein's famous equation E=m*c^2. Matter can be converted to energy and energy can be condensed to form matter.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It doesn't take millions of years to petrify. And large amounts of forest around Mt. St. Helens was petrified by the lava. I have my very own petrified pickles. If you go to a Creation Science museum, you'll find many examples of petrification that obviously happened recently.

No it doesn't take millions of years to petrify. we have springs and falls where you can hang your child's first shoes and it only takes a few years.

It is the age of the thing that is important not that is is petrified. Age can be measured in other ways. petrification is an indicator not a measuring tool.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Tell that to Einstein. Ever here of an an atomic bomb? Radioactive matter is converted to pure energy on the basis of Einstein's famous equation E=m*c^2. Matter can be converted to energy and energy can be condensed to form matter.

Not quite. That formula is the basis of adding energy to matter, and overcoming the I Law of Thermodynamics. The problem is, we need something to contain the energy. The two instances being a nuclear reactor, and an atom bomb. An atom bomb causes nothing but destruction; a nuclear reactor produces electricity by containing nuclear reactions. The Big Bang would apply to the first instance; there was no harness, so it would be impossible to create a well-ordered universe as the result of a massive exposion of energy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not quite. That formula is the basis of adding energy to matter, and overcoming the II Law of Thermodynamics. The problem is, we need something to contain the energy. The two instances being a nuclear reactor, and an atom bomb. An atom bomb causes nothing but destruction; a nuclear reactor produces electricity by containing nuclear reactions. The Big Bang would apply to the first instance; there was no harness, so it would be impossible to create a well-ordered universe as the result of a massive exposion of energy.

Which is why traditional Christian doctrine and evolution are mutually exclusive.

By the way, explosions do have order, so much as they can be predicted, calculated and and graphed. We pretty much knew exactly what to expect with the atom bombs from physics and mathematics, which is why we spent so much money on it. The universe too can have some order and predictability while being a huge explosion.

 

[Willamena]

Not quite. That formula is the basis of adding energy to matter, and overcoming the I Law of Thermodynamics.

The equation actually equates energy to matter.