Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- discipler0
That's what I like you, JazX. You seem to be one of the very few people here who are truly objective about these issues. You don't let false caricatures painted by academic or political gurus steer you a certain way and thus make yourself appear pseudo-intellectual.
- mrdobolina0
yesterday it was 6,000 years, today it is 10,000.
- ********0
discipler - ID WOULD nopt exist if the bible sis not exist. For chrisakes the site you send us to most of the time is answeringgenesis.com...
Discussion of the Bible is everywhere on that site. If ID is not out to represent and prove a literal biblical point of view I don't know what it's about.
It has a goal and direction in mind.
When Newton started looking at astronomy a few centuries back it wasn't to "I will prove one day that god does not exist and we are a result of a big bang thus proving that there is no god". He didn't know where it would lead. Heck, Newton was a devout Christian who essentially was looking for the evidence of god's workmanship in the heavens...
- lowimpakt0
i have no personal proof that the earth is older than 27 years.
and jaz "save the planet" is more than CO2 levels. :)
reducing it to disputed methods is neglectful of all the other realities
- discipler0
whatever, dobs... young earth creationists maintain that the earth was created "no more than" 10k years ago.
- kelpie0
Some believe there is evidence that the earth is younger than 10,000 years. There is great conjecture regarding dating methods.
discipler
(Jun 14 05, 07:08)I hope you're suggesting you don't believe that yourself discipler. 10000 years is a drop in the ocean man - promoting that kind of falshood is really damaging to our progress.
I sincerely hope children are not being coached toward this type of ignorance in schools anywhere these days, if enough are, we are going to be going backward very soon.
I have no problem with people of any faith (my uncle is a minister for example) but this kind of revisionist scientific rear guard action is very worrying :(
- discipler0
Tick, wrong again. ID has nothing to do with the Bible! Go and read my explanation again and read this link immediately:
http://www.ideacenter.org/conten…
Answers In Genesis - Biblical Creationist Scientists
IdeaCenter - Scientists who promote I.D..
- mrdobolina0
I agree with kelpie. the answering genesis article about the grand canyon is ridiculous.
might as well say paul bunyan dragged his axe through it.
- Anarchitect0
"Creationism needs more cowbell"
Benedict, Rick , PhD , PEng.
- lowimpakt0
ha ha
- kelpie0
"It is an impossibly complex machine which could not possibly have generated through random biological processes."
--------------well imo, this is precisely the reason that machine HAD to have eveolved and not been created.
Though perhaps if life had only 10'000 years of development, it would seem immpossibly complex. ie, this arguement will never go anywhere.
take care discipler - what's the point of an arguement which never reaches a conclusion? :)
- bruised_blood0
round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round we go...
... watch the dog chase its tail.
- discipler0
Kelpie, do you profess to be a Christian? If so, do you not believe the Biblical account of Creation in Genesis? Unless you take an allegorical interpretation to Genesis, you have to conclude that the earth is younger than 10K years. Have you studied Radiometric Dating? Are you familiar with the rampant conjecture and inconsistencies with it? Because textbooks speak of the earth being billions of years old as fact, do you believe it? Textbooks also teach Darwinian Evolution as fact (not for much longer though, if objective scientists have their way).
- mattyd0
i dont have time to read the whole thead, summary???
//
- subflux0
a'ight the Young Earth stuff was enough to get me back in the fray... (full disclosure: I did a bit o copy/paste to fill in some dates)
The Greek philosopher Xenophanes (570-470BC) noticed sea-shell fossils on mountains and concluded that they must have been formed by very slow processes, hence an old Earth. Herodotus (484-426BC) realized a century later that the northward bulge of Egypt into the Mediterranean can only be explained through the gradual deposition of mud which was carried there by the Nile river.
Meanwhile: Theophilus of Antioch (115-181AD) proposed the "begat" method to determine the age of the Earth from the Bible.
1000 yrs later English philosopher Roger Bacon (1214-1292AD) harshly criticized the Church for its doctrine of biblical interpretation over the scientific method, so they locked him up. 200 years later, Leonardo Da Vinci observed that fossils were preserved so that the communities remained intact, and he reasoned that a catastrophic flood would have disrupted any such patterns, so they must have been laid down very gradually, rather than in a single catastrophic event. While Da Vinci escaped imprisonment, the Chuch's only response was to refine its "begat" method a century later under James Ussher, to produce the current YEC date of 4004BC for the creation of the Earth.
THAT'S where this figure of a 6000 yr old earth comes from.
Da Vinci planted the seed of fresh ideas, and he was soon followed by other thinkers such as Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686, father of the geological Principle of Superposition and considered by some to be the father of geology itself), Robert Hooke (1635-1703, a legendary scientist who identified patterns of great time passage and species alteration in fossil records, although he didn't describe a mechanism for this change, unlike Darwin), and James Hutton (1726-1797), who presented very carefully reasoned arguments on the cyclical gradualist processes that drive the formation of geological structures within the Earth. His "Theory of the Earth" was published in 1788 and described many modern principles such as subterranean heat as a driving force for geological change, the differentiation between sedimentary and igneous rock, plate uplift as the cause for discontinuities, etc.
We're still a few hundred years from Darwin (who was a thesist, not a scientist). Evolution may have some holes in it, but we've known the Earth is older than the begats for , oh about two millenia.
- discipler0
kelpie, it is exactly the opposite. The cell is irreducibly complex, meaning that if you were to take away one of it's components, it could not function as the molecular machine that it is. And naturalist explanations of origins have no way of explaining how this complexity could assemble. It is not an issue of enough time. Billions of years would not have produced it! Get some facts:
- ********0
Objective is a good.
Honestly, I can't sit and say I understand everything about the Creationist viewpoint. It's interesting though.. I just know what I was taught in school. I did enjoy that article about the NZ andesites though. Chemically, that made sense to me.
Hahhaaa, makes me want to look at thin sections of igneous rock again. Slicing rock with a saw is fun!
- subflux0
And about radiometric dating...
The problem with attacks on radiometric dating; they assume that any weakness in the precision of the method somehow translates to the conclusion that all of the figures are hundreds of thousands of times too big! Think about it: we're finding anomalously high concentrations of decay products from substances that have half-lives of hundreds of millions of years. Regardless of how precisely we can estimate the ages of these rocks, the fact that we can detect these concentrations at all is proof that age estimates of less than 10,000 years are completely impossible.
- lowimpakt0
if god is a designer - i'd like to see the brief.