steaknchips Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 I question everything. No one should ever accept anything that someone tells them without knowing the reasoning and the evidence behind it. I was one of the people going "hang on, lets wait for them to confirm it" when the "faster than light" neutrino was announced precisely for that reason. Understanding is the key to knowledge, not blind belief. Your mind however is closed to anything that disagrees with the bible, by your own admission. That's frankly quite disturbing. David M Raup. “most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.” “we still have a record which does show change, but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” In comparing fossil forms with modern forms, we do see change all right, but it’s not the kind of change associated with natural selection. It’s simply "variation" within the created kinds, plus decline and even extinction, reflecting corruption and catastrophe." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 David M Raup. “most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.” David M Raup. "Although fossils of the earliest forms are important to our knowledge of the history of life, the fosil record is dominated numerically by the remains of multicellular organisms from the last 600 million years" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 I question everything. No one should ever accept anything that someone tells them without knowing the reasoning and the evidence behind it. I was one of the people going "hang on, lets wait for them to confirm it" when the "faster than light" neutrino was announced precisely for that reason. Understanding is the key to knowledge, not blind belief. Your mind however is closed to anything that disagrees with the bible, by your own admission. That's frankly quite disturbing. Niles Eldredge. "As we have seen, the fossils of invertebrates, the most abundant by far of all fossils, do offer strong support for the concept of creation, specifically the Biblical concepts of Creation-Corruption-Catastrophe-Christ." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 Risso, Yes they are both evolutionists, they are hard liners that the earth is billions of years old..Im getting quotes from the "non-creationists" tp prove they are stuck.. The dating is all "estimated" from years ago...Radiometric dating takes place on an "estimated" date..Its flawed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 12, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 12, 2011 I question everything. No one should ever accept anything that someone tells them without knowing the reasoning and the evidence behind it. I was one of the people going "hang on, lets wait for them to confirm it" when the "faster than light" neutrino was announced precisely for that reason. Understanding is the key to knowledge, not blind belief. Your mind however is closed to anything that disagrees with the bible, by your own admission. That's frankly quite disturbing. Niles Eldredge. "As we have seen, the fossils of invertebrates, the most abundant by far of all fossils, do offer strong support for the concept of creation, specifically the Biblical concepts of Creation-Corruption-Catastrophe-Christ." Where did that Niles Eldredge quote come from. He's one of the author's of Punctuated Equilibria, a neo-Darwinian idea from the 70's, he is firmly in the "believes in evolution" camp, not without his controversies but definitely pro-evolution. I'd like you to provide us with the exact place that quote comes from so it can be read in-context EDIT: actually don't bother, he didn't say it, you got it from this book and either clearly cannot tell the difference between a quote and some madcaps interpretation of a scientist use of two words in a scientific paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 12, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 12, 2011 Risso, Yes they are both evolutionists, they are hard liners that the earth is billions of years old..Im getting quotes from the "non-creationists" tp prove they are stuck.. The dating is all "estimated" from years ago...Radiometric dating takes place on an "estimated" date..Its flawed! This idea that dating is "estimated" is another of those bonkers non-scientific ideas you subscribe to that isn't remotely true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 Bicks, http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evoquotes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 12, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 12, 2011 Bicks, http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evoquotes.html No, I meant his original words in the scientific paper / journal and if you look at my edited post, you'll see that he didn't actually say that at all, that is some madcap nutters (Gary Parker) interpretation of Niles Eldredge using the term Special Creation (meaning something completely different to how said nutter interprets it) So it wasn't said by him, you copied it from a website without first checking your facts and I've found where it originates from and proved it to be bollocks. EDIT: Not only that but you didn't get it from that website, supreme failure on your behalf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 well could you do a quick summery? Dinosaurs lived with man. They were just called different names, amongst them was tanniyn, bahemowth and livyathan. The earth is less than 10000 years old.(accurate age would be between 6000-7000 years old).. After the global flood the earth has been populated by the contents of the seas and the Ark. Right....and you are saying these were killed in the flood? Leviathan the sea beast ...i thought was a demon? are you saying dinosaurs were demons ?? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Steaknchips, have you ever wondered why it is ONLY creationist "scientists" who believe in a new earth? If your theories had any merit at all, then surely there'd be some scientists who weren't looking at things biblically who'd agree with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 Bicks, http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evoquotes.html No, I meant his original words in the scientific paper / journal and if you look at my edited post, you'll see that he didn't actually say that at all, that is some madcap nutters (Gary Parker) interpretation of Niles Eldredge using the term Special Creation (meaning something completely different to how said nutter interprets it) So it wasn't said by him, you copied it from a website without first checking your facts and I've found where it originates from and proved it to be bollocks. EDIT: Not only that but you didn't get it from that website, supreme failure on your behalf Look at the bottom of this page, all the sources are evident in writing.. http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 Eldredge, Niles; as quoted in: Sunday Mail, Brisbane, Australia, September 14, 1986. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 Steaknchips, have you ever wondered why it is ONLY creationist "scientists" who believe in a new earth? If your theories had any merit at all, then surely there'd be some scientists who weren't looking at things biblically who'd agree with you? No "its only creative scientists using scientific method"... Many Christians dont like them because they think they should be using faith and not using science to prove the bible's worth. Im just using them on this thread because they understand (unlike just ordinary christians etc) science, evolution, geology, bio chemistry etc etc.. Im now resorting to using evolution sided scientist's quotes to show this thread the flaws in evolution...As you have already decided the creative scientists are not worthy enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 So what is the name of your branch of christianity? Its difficult to explain but I dont put myself into a brand/branch, cult, sect, etc..They are all money grabbing, corrupt, broken in my eyes. Im just a christian that believes the bible as it is written literally.. Ok, I'll run with this. How then do you explain then that 4 gospels are flawed and contradictory accounts of the same events? That none can agree on who was present at the resurrection? That the Council of Nicea edited and agreed the versions of the Gospels that would ultimately appear in the Bible? Do you throw your mother, wife, girlfriend out of the house once a month for 5 days whilst she is unclean? Do you condone the stoning of adulterers? You don't. I admire people of faith, and some of the values espoused by the Abrahamic religions are indeed noble and worthy. But I also believe you are just a pisstaker. Albeit a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 So what is the name of your branch of christianity? Its difficult to explain but I dont put myself into a brand/branch, cult, sect, etc..They are all money grabbing, corrupt, broken in my eyes. Im just a christian that believes the bible as it is written literally.. Ok, I'll run with this. How then do you explain then that 4 gospels are flawed and contradictory accounts of the same events? That none can agree on who was present at the resurrection? That the Council of Nicea edited and agreed the versions of the Gospels that would ultimately appear in the Bible? Do you throw your mother, wife, girlfriend out of the house once a month for 5 days whilst she is unclean? Do you condone the stoning of adulterers? You don't. I admire people of faith, and some of the values espoused by the Abrahamic religions are indeed noble and worthy. But I also believe you are just a pisstaker. Albeit a good one. Any Christian apologetics site can answer all these questions you have..I suggest this one. Its fair and well researched. http://carm.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 12, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 12, 2011 Bicks, http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evoquotes.html No, I meant his original words in the scientific paper / journal and if you look at my edited post, you'll see that he didn't actually say that at all, that is some madcap nutters (Gary Parker) interpretation of Niles Eldredge using the term Special Creation (meaning something completely different to how said nutter interprets it) So it wasn't said by him, you copied it from a website without first checking your facts and I've found where it originates from and proved it to be bollocks. EDIT: Not only that but you didn't get it from that website, supreme failure on your behalf Look at the bottom of this page, all the sources are evident in writing.. http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ a) Thats another creationist website, not the original scientific paper / journal the original quote is said to come from It's an entirely different quote c) it has absolutely nothing to do with an Australian Newspaper So can we go back to the original supposed Eldredge quote I know where it comes from, I've even linked to it, he didn't say it as I pointed out, Gary Parker did, so why are you trying to perpetuate the idea that he said it, he didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sie Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Any Christian apologetics site can answer all these questions you have..I suggest this one. Its fair and well researched. http://carm.org/ Of course it will provide answers. He's after the truth though, not subterfuge. You should work for Fox News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Steaknchips, have you ever wondered why it is ONLY creationist "scientists" who believe in a new earth? If your theories had any merit at all, then surely there'd be some scientists who weren't looking at things biblically who'd agree with you? No "its only creative scientists using scientific method"... Many Christians dont like them because they think they should be using faith and not using science to prove the bible's worth. Im just using them on this thread because they understand (unlike just ordinary christians etc) science, evolution, geology, bio chemistry etc etc.. Im now resorting to using evolution sided scientist's quotes to show this thread the flaws in evolution...As you have already decided the creative scientists are not worthy enough! That's not what I asked for. Show me one none-creationist who believes in a new earth theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Look at the bottom of this page, all the sources are evident in writing.. http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ God that article is bad. I especially like the section on entropy. One of creationists favourite weapons... except it's complete crap and is just based on a flawed understanding of what entropy is. Entropy is a measure of the amount of ways a system can achieve a certain state. For instance, if a throw a load of marbles onto my bed they're probably going to end up fairly evenly distributed across it in a fairly random pattern. That state has high entropy, that is, a high chance it'll occur. There's also a chance that they'll land in a perfect image of Jesus Christ our lord and saviour, but there's not very many ways that can happen, so it has low entropy. Systems tend towards having high entropy simply due to there being more chance of them occurring. If I pick up my marbles that formed the face of Jesus Christ our lord and saviour and threw them again, they'll probably land in a random pattern. But there's also a chance they'll land in a representation of the Virgin Mary holy mother of God, maybe even a more lifelike representation than the first, leading to a decrease in entropy. That doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics (that being that over time systems will tend towards high entropy) for a key reason, we're looking at a localised section of an open system. The second law of thermodynamics deals with CLOSED systems, not localised events. To show that evolution is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics you'd have to prove that the entropy of the entire universe decreased as a result of it. And it hasn't, because the events that need to occur for evolution result in an increase in entropy elsewhere in the system. The overall effect will be an increase in entropy, despite the fact that on a local level entropy might have increased. To see just how absurd the argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is you only have to look as far as pregnancy. In pregnancy there is a dramatic change from a high entropy to a low entropy system. Sperm and eggs are extremely high entropy. The early stages of cell division are extremely high entropy. Then entropy continuously decreases throughout the term of the pregnancy. If evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics you wouldn't be here today because pregnancy would as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 Steaknchips, have you ever wondered why it is ONLY creationist "scientists" who believe in a new earth? If your theories had any merit at all, then surely there'd be some scientists who weren't looking at things biblically who'd agree with you? No "its only creative scientists using scientific method"... Many Christians dont like them because they think they should be using faith and not using science to prove the bible's worth. Im just using them on this thread because they understand (unlike just ordinary christians etc) science, evolution, geology, bio chemistry etc etc.. Im now resorting to using evolution sided scientist's quotes to show this thread the flaws in evolution...As you have already decided the creative scientists are not worthy enough! That's not what I asked for. Show me one none-creationist who believes in a new earth theory. You have to believe in creation 1st.. A creationist, is someone that believes in creation. The scientists are just normal scientists that believe in creation rather than evolution.. A great example of a non creationist scientist thats become questionable over the scientific method(evolution) is Michael Denton.. You have to understand here, that its hard for a scientist with great academic record to side with creation...Its would almost dishonour him/her in the field of which they operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts