Community

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33
I don't think I said that I approach science as an attacker of religion.

What I said was:

quote:

So, to the extent that science has turned out to be the launching point for the ultimate attack on faith, I think that's ironic in the extreme.

By this, I did not mean that science was an attacker of religion. What I meant was that certain people were using science as the launching point for an attack on religion.

quote:

Again, I didn't take the view that science is inherently materialistic. I took the view that certain people who are basically materialistic use science to buttress their world view. And I think that's true. And I think you and I would agree that that's a misuse of science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33
I don't think I said that I approach science as an attacker of religion.

What I said was:

quote:

So, to the extent that science has turned out to be the launching point for the ultimate attack on faith, I think that's ironic in the extreme.

By this, I did not mean that science was an attacker of religion. What I meant was that certain people were using science as the launching point for an attack on religion.

quote:

Again, I didn't take the view that science is inherently materialistic. I took the view that certain people who are basically materialistic use science to buttress their world view. And I think that's true. And I think you and I would agree that that's a misuse of science.

Indeed, I do agree the problem is with some people's misuse of science. The question remains whether you consider the theory of evolution, in whole or in part, to be science or a misuse of science.

quote:

So they have passed along obvious lies that apes can turn into humans and count on the fact that their university degrees will be used to brainwash school children into blindly accepting it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

Just talk to an Evolutionist for long enough, and you will eventually hear "Evolution is for smart people and Creation is for dummies. Just look at all the degrees and smart people we have!!!" GAG!

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

So they have passed along obvious lies that apes can turn into humans and count on the fact that their university degrees will be used to brainwash school children into blindly accepting it.

And unfortunately as this is, this happens every single day. Just talk to an Evolutionist for long enough, and you will eventually hear "Evolution is for smart people and Creation is for dummies. Just look at all the degrees and smart people we have!!!" GAG! Ph.Ds prove NOTHING, especially when the degrees are given only to those who agree with the college.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Godhead

Evidence for a young Earth…

Evidence for rapid formation of geological strata, as in the Biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: Lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by millions of years: lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (Worms, roots, etc.); Lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (Which traverse several rock layers vertically - these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried) ; thick layers of rock bent without fracturing, indicate that the rock was soft when bent. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a thousand years – certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.
The Earths magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less then 10000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in the rocks, that it has not has time escape – certainly not billions of years. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star - the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (stage 3) SNRs., and few moderately old SNRs (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect for young galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 cm a year ( 1.5 inches), and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years for it to reach it present position. This give the maximum possible age of the moon, not actual age. This is fare too young for evolutionist who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger then the radiometric dates that moon rock give us. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

Salt is entering the sea much faster then it is escaping. The sea is not nearly as salty enough for this to be happening for billions of years. This shows a possible maximum age of the ocean to be millions of years and not billions of years believed by evolutionist. (Ham, K., Safrati, J., Wieland, C. 1999, The answers Book, Updated & Expanded. Triune Press, Brisbane)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33
I don't think I said that I approach science as an attacker of religion.

What I said was:

quote:

So, to the extent that science has turned out to be the launching point for the ultimate attack on faith, I think that's ironic in the extreme.

By this, I did not mean that science was an attacker of religion. What I meant was that certain people were using science as the launching point for an attack on religion.

quote:

Again, I didn't take the view that science is inherently materialistic. I took the view that certain people who are basically materialistic use science to buttress their world view. And I think that's true. And I think you and I would agree that that's a misuse of science.

Indeed, I do agree the problem is with some people's misuse of science. The question remains whether you consider the theory of evolution, in whole or in part, to be science or a misuse of science.

It's not only a misuse of science, it's an abominable misuse of science. Scientists count on the lay person not questioning their methods or their judgment. So they have passed along obvious lies that apes can turn into humans and count on the fact that their university degrees will be used to brainwash school children into blindly accepting it. There can hardly be anything more deceitful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33
I don't think I said that I approach science as an attacker of religion.

What I said was:

quote:

So, to the extent that science has turned out to be the launching point for the ultimate attack on faith, I think that's ironic in the extreme.

By this, I did not mean that science was an attacker of religion. What I meant was that certain people were using science as the launching point for an attack on religion.

quote:

Again, I didn't take the view that science is inherently materialistic. I took the view that certain people who are basically materialistic use science to buttress their world view. And I think that's true. And I think you and I would agree that that's a misuse of science.

Indeed, I do agree the problem is with some people's misuse of science. The question remains whether you consider the theory of evolution, in whole or in part, to be science or a misuse of science.

It's not only a misuse of science, it's an abominable misuse of science. Scientists count on the lay person not questioning their methods or their judgment. So they have passed along obvious lies that apes can turn into humans and count on the fact that their university degrees will be used to brainwash school children into blindly accepting it. There can hardly be anything more deceitful.

This thread is not about evolution. It is about young earth creationism, and scientific evidence for it. Lets get this discussion back on track please.

Please note: Proving evolution wrong, or casting doubt upon it does not necessarily equal positive evidence for young earth creationism. Anything that was evidence for YEC would surely be evidence against evolution as we know it, but most things that could potentially prove evolution wrong wouldn't be evidence for YEC. You can rail against evolution all day long, and still probably wouldn't provide a lick of evidence for YEC, which is what seems to be going on here, and most definately is not what this thread is about.

quote:

Yup. That's because as Jesus tells us, God hides the truth from those who claim to be wise and learned and reveals it to little children. And that's why only little children and those who are as humble as children know why apes can't turn into people. But those who claim to be wise and learned don't understand the simple basics of biology and reproduction at all.

quote:

Please note: Proving evolution wrong, or casting doubt upon it does not necessarily equal positive evidence for young earth creationism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Proving evolutionism wrong most certainly sheds positive light on creation! It's foolish to think otherwise. If an evoltuionist could somehow PROVE God does not exist and therefor creation is wrong, noone would second guess evolution. But, thank GOD, His Word still stands Almighty and Powerful, and no so-called "knowledge" of man will never compete with God's Holy Word!

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

Ya, I'm still waiting for the apple tree in my back yard to start producing oranges. I'm getting sick and tired of eating apples, and I'd like evolution to step up to the plate and create oranges, because that would be SO refreshing!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

Ya, I'm still waiting for the apple tree in my back yard to start producing oranges. I'm getting sick and tired of eating apples, and I'd like evolution to step up to the plate and create oranges, because that would be SO refreshing!

That wouldn't be evolution. -- That would be a miracle. Don't look to evolution for miracles.

quote:

That wouldn't be evolution. -- That would be a miracle. Don't look to evolution for miracles.

quote:

We can copy and paste websites back and forth all day long, but I'd rather talk about things.

quote:

This thread is not about evolution.

quote:

Provide scientific evidence for a young earth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
No, you would rather distort, deny, and reject the evidence that's been presented. You're mind's made up, drj!

You really don't get it, do you, drj. Without indeterminable eons of time, THERE IS NO EVOLUTION! YEC science is much more a threat to the religion of evolutionism than evolution is to the accurate, historical account of origins found in God's inerrant Word.

As usual, it's not the evidence that's at question here, it's the underlying assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism that cloud the correct interpretation of that evidence. Your thread is meaningless, drj, until you realize this fatal flaw!

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
No, you would rather distort, deny, and reject the evidence that's been presented. You're mind's made up, drj!

You really don't get it, do you, drj. Without indeterminable eons of time, THERE IS NO EVOLUTION! YEC science is much more a threat to the religion of evolutionism than evolution is to the accurate, historical account of origins found in God's inerrant Word.

As usual, it's not the evidence that's at question here, it's the underlying assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism that cloud the correct interpretation of that evidence. Your thread is meaningless, drj, until you realize this fatal flaw!

Fortunately, you are not the sole infallible master of exegesis of God's word. Again, we determined a long time ago this thread isnt for you. You already claimed there is no scientific evidence for YEC. This thread is for those who claim there is. I'd appreciate it if you stopped derailing the discussion further than it already has been, since you really have nothing of value to add to the topic. Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Personal attacks always indicate that one cannot defend his own beliefs.

quote:


What the attacker doesn't realize is that if his beliefs are wrong, then attacking someone else isn't going to make them right. And if his beliefs are right, then there's absolutely no need to attack others. So your comments are unwarranted. Just stick to the topic.

quote:

we can't even trace lineages of present day people back to Jesus, much less Adam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

we can't even trace lineages of present day people back to Jesus, much less Adam.

I wasn't aware that Jesus had any descendants, drj. Please elaborate!

quote:

In order to get to Adam you have to connect your family tree back to Jesus somehow

quote:

Did the global flood last for 200 years?

quote:

Except for one slight problem: nothing in that post is in any way evidence for a young earth. Assuming for the sake of argument that the science as presented by Zunic is correct, all this shows is that the limestone layers (like Dover) COULD have been generated in a short time. There is nothing at all that would lead us to believe that they actually WERE generated in a short time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
I haven't found any Creationist articles that thoroughly address the biomass issue so far. However, I can say this: Creation scientists believe the pre-Flood world had far more biomass than today's world. At least 100 times today's biomass. (I know that isn't nearly enough according to ES, but that's just one estimate that I found). ... since every species found in the fossil record and more were living on the earth at the time.