|
4 registered members (7th_zorro, Quad, VoroneTZ, 1 invisible),
623
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68801
04/02/06 06:11
04/02/06 06:11
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
Ran Man
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
|
Quote:
Maybe. But this thread is not about belief, as you can not discuss or argue about belief. It's about _scientific_ arguments of creationism.
Here are a few arguments for a "young" created earth.
I've read many of these before in "creationist" books. 
EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE
Quote:
1 - Earth rotation. Because of solar and lunar gravitational drag forces, the spin of the earth (now about 1,000 mph [1,609 kmph]) is gradually slowing down. If our world were billions of years old, it would already have stopped turning. Or, calculating differently, a billion years ago our planet would have been spinning so fast—it would have become a pancake. So, either way, our earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.—p. 21.
2 - Magnetic field decay. Earth's magnetic field is slowly, relentlessly lessening. Even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it is now. Only 20,000 years ago, enough heat would have been generated to liquefy the planet. Therefore, the earth cannot be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. This is an important matter, affects the entire planet, and has been measured for over 150 years.—pp. 21-23.
EVIDENCE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH
Quote:
1 - Escaping natural gas. Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out through the impermeable rock cap. The rate of gas escapement has been found to be far too rapid to agree with long ages. If the theory were true, all the natural gas would now be escaped.—p. 23.
2 - Oil pressure. When drillers first penetrate into oil, there is a "gusher." This is caused by high pressure in the oil vein. Analysis of surrounding rock permeability reveals that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but it has not happened. These deep rock formations and their entrapped oil cannot be older than 7,000 to 10,000 years.—pp. 23, 26.
3 - Oil seepage. If much oil seepage had occurred from out of the ocean floors, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone if the earth were 20,000 years old.—p. 26.
EVIDENCE FROM LIVING THINGS
Quote:
1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., were erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.—pp. 29-30.
EVIDENCE FROM CIVILIZATION
Quote:
1 - Historical records. If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, we should find records extending back at least 500,000 years. (Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a million years.) But, instead, records only go back to about 2000-3500 B.C. When writing began, it was fully developed. The earliest dates are Egyptian (Manetho's king lists), but should be lowered for several reasons. Well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600 B.C.—pp. 30-31.
2 - Early Biblical records. Bible records carry us back to a Creation date of approximately 4000 B.C., with a Flood date of about 2348 B.C. Scientific facts point us toward the same dates.—pp. 31-32.
7 - Population statistics. Estimates, based on population changes, indicate that, about the year 3300 B.C., there was only one family.—p. 33.
8 - Facts vs. theories. Evolutionary estimates of the age of the earth have constantly changed and lengthened with the passing of time (it currently stands at 5 billion years). But the scientific evidence remains constant and, as new authentic evidence emerges, it only fastens down the dates even more firmly. It all points to a beginning for our planet about 6,000 years ago. Some may see it as 7,000 to 10,000 years, but the evidence points most distinctly toward a date of about 4,000 B.C. for the origin of our planet. The evidence for an early earth is not only solid, it is scientific.—pp. 34-35.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee3.htm
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Ran Man]
#68802
04/02/06 08:22
04/02/06 08:22
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Thanks for the non-bible arguments. But forgive my smiling at some of them - whowever wrote that book has probably missed a lot in school: Earth rotation: yes, its slowing down - at the rate of 2.2 seconds every 100,000 years... Magnetic field: as far as I've learned in school, it has changed very often in the past billions of years. The history of the magnetic field is well known and can be easily read from the orientation of magnetic minerals. Oil and gas pressure: even though I'm no oil expert, it seems obvious to me that with equal pressure on all sides, as is the case down below, an oil or gas bubble can't expand at all - until you drill a hole to a lower-pressure region, like the surface. Tree rings: I don't understand what you intend to prove here. History: Modern man does not exist since millions of years, only since 200,000 years. His evolutionary predecessors, like homo habilis, lived 2 million years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionAnd as to the ancient writings that were fully developed - well, how would you write something with "half-developed" writing? ------------- Besides from all the facts: Do you really believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, but the other planets, the sun or the other stars are not? Or do you also believe the same for the age of the sun and the universe?
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: ICEman]
#68803
04/02/06 12:33
04/02/06 12:33
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Its a theory thats under scientific srutiny. It was accepted, but now not so much. I, on the otherhand never did..youre right.. but neither does a good part of the scientific world.
no, you are completetly wrong.. where do you get this from??? The entire scietific commnuity is firmly committed to Darwinian evolution. And as I have said multiple times, all the biological sciences use Darwin as a foundation, a framework to understand everything else. Darwin is as important today as Newton was 200 years ago.
Clearly you dont know anything about the state of science. Don't believe the nonsense you read on creationist propaganda websites. No serious biologists question evolution. Instead, evolutionry theory is becoming more important and crucial than ever before.
Aren't there any poeple in the sciences on this forum that can speak to this?
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#68806
04/02/06 17:16
04/02/06 17:16
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
Ran Man
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
|
@ Matt, Quote:
there are no scientific arguments for creationism.
Well okay we only have facts on our side then.
About the oil and natural gas, what we know is that oil and gas are naturally seeping, or escaping out of the earth, even if they are not drilled for. This is due to natural pressure from beneath the earth.
So, if the earth was really millions or billions of years old, then all the gas and oil would be gone by now. It would all have escaped and dissipated and would not exist now.
Now how about this scenario below?
Quote:
1 - River deltas. The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cm] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year—continually enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large. Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years (4,620 years, to be exact). If the world were 120,000 years old, that delta would extend all the way to the North Pole .—pp. 27-28.
Wow! To the north pole!!! 
Okay then, I suggest that since the earth would be now WATER, that we all now go out and buy a big boat to live in.
And we should also all change our names to NOAH!
LOL
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Ran Man]
#68808
04/02/06 18:40
04/02/06 18:40
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
 This is E.coli. E. coli has about 4,639,221 nucleotide base pairs, which code for 4,288 genes, each one of which produces an enormously complex protein machine. The E.coli is a good study subject because it represents the smallest type of self-sustainable life form. Many of the smaller bacteria are parasitic types of life forms which dont really make a good subject for the study of minimal requirements of life.(Its another subject to try to understand how these little parasites evolved) So if E.coli represents early evolution, how in the world did it evolve to the tremendous level of complexity which it has? Every machine must have a certain minimum number of parts for it to function, and if one part below this minimum is removed, the machine will cease to function. E.coli represents a machine which is vastly complex even to the level that there are really only a few people on earth who completely understand it, (and I have a feeling that complete knowledge of just about anything in the world is impossible at this time)so it certainly is beyond what we can understand. However, we can use what we do understand about things, and we can take our own common sense(mixed with a lot of bias ) and come up with conclusions that make sense. So I can only give the "present state of my knowledge", next week, the "present state of my knowledge" will hopefully grow. But according to my limited knowledge, a cellular life form, a single-celled organism like the E.coli and any cell throughout any body consists of some basic parts: 1. DNA \- contains the cell's "masterplan" 2. RNA - Transports protein assembly instructions to the "protein assembly station" 3. Proteins - Which make up everything. 4. Ribosomes , enzymes , various other chaperons and protein assembly helpers. So it is a lot like a machine or a factory. All the peices are dependent upon each other, DNA would be nothing without RNA and proteins. (Though there seems to be some mixing within the various function for certain types of cells) So the problem of the complexity of life is a real obstacle to the theory of evolution. Various theories have been used to explain it, Panspermia being one solution, which basically states that life started elsewhere (like ello said), but that theory just displaces the essential problem. I think it is worth saying that panspermia itself was advanced by Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, Crick was one of the co-discoverers of DNA, and the complexity of the model would be extremely familiar to him. But panspermia only takes the problem of the complexity of a cell to a different part of the universe, it doesnt directly address it. The naturalistic view is that all of this assembled rather by chance, however, even if we igonre the amazing odds against that happening, natural evolutionists still seem to ignore that a cell needs a way to take in food and biochemically process it. It also needs a way to distribute oxygen. None of these processes/functions could have evolved seperately, and none of them could have survived independently. The beginning life form is what we call: "irreducibly complex". Irreducible complexity is found all throughout biology, yet at its most fundamental level, the cell, it is blazingly apparent. Even if these parts and functions could have evolved (through mutation, which cannot happen), the many parts needed for life could not sit idle waiting for the other parts to evolve, because the existing ones would usually deteriorate very quickly from the effects of: 1. Dehydration 2. Oxidation 3. The action of bacteria or other pathogens. For this reason, only an instantaneous creation of all the necessary parts as a functioning unit can produce life.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#68809
04/02/06 19:11
04/02/06 19:11
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
I also think common sense is part of the scientific argument.
Evolution needs a universe to operate in. Even if we accept the age of the universe we still need to determine where the universe came from.
Quantum fluctuations explain that the universe could have been created from almost nothing , but true ex nihilo creation is not "almost nothing". There had to be time and space to begin with, the quantum fluctuations need to come from somewhere. Science still needs to figure out where time and space came from, they need to find out where the quantum fluctuations come from.
Nothing can come from nothing.
"What about God?" You say, He must have come from nothing, so therefore your logic fails there also"
That line of reasoning doesnt work for two reasons.
1)The most important reason is that it provides absolutely no answer to the question that was asked. Having someone explain the origination of God doesnt do anything to help science figure out how the universe came into existence. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, if science supposes that the universe came from nothing then they should show the proof. The proof is not in the speculation of how God came into being.
2)It is comparing apples with oranges. We are trying to determine the origins of matter,time and space. The biblical definition of God clearly states Him as a being outside of matter, time and space.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#68810
04/02/06 19:33
04/02/06 19:33
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I'm absolutely amazed by reading this. To the point of almost being sickened by some of you so called 'scientific' people. JCL, you're a good guy. You (apparently) believe in evolution without hating people who oppose your beliefs, and you don't resort to belittling them, as if it helps your point. I appreciate that. Some of us are here to have a scientific argument, and that's what I'm hoping for. However, some of the statements on the side of 'science' are either hate-filled, or more closely resemble this 'insanity' we creationists supposedly have. Furthermore, you assume that even scientists accept evolution as complete and utter fact as you do. They simply do not, and the more they experiment with genetics, etc, the more they find huge gaps and problems with their own theory. Which is why, to this day, while scientists study life from the perspective of evolution, they understand that evolution is starting to fail as a theory. However, I'm not posting this to get into the discussion just yet. I still need a short time to finish formulating my thesis, because genetics is definately not a simple thing. I've been cramming my brain full these past few days. My argument is going to be completely scientific, but what it won't do is compeletely disprove evolution. What it will do is dispell the notion that evolution is fact and that anyone can believe it based on the evidence. It will show that evidence for evolution can only be evidence for evolution if you already believe evolution works. My argument is simply intended to show what scientists already know: you must have faith in the theory to believe it. Because the real evidence simply isn't there. In fact, the more we tamper with genetics and try to prove evolution, the harder it is to believe that evolution was the catalyst for the wide variety of life on earth. I'm not asking anyone to throw science out the window, I'm simply asking that you accept that evolution is 'junk science' and move on to finding the real origins of life. I'm against evolution not for emotional reasons, but because I feel its gotten science caught in a rut. And until materialists are willing to accept that evolution is a fallen theory, science will be unable to answer the really interesting questions about life, or at least paint an accurate picture of life as we see it today. However, this will all be done scientifically, so no claims that I'm emotional, insane, or irrational can be made. I'm just basing my arguments off of the past experience of scientists. I also want to state for the record what I'm referring to when I use the word evolution, because I think if we're all on the same page then this discussion will be a lot smoother. Evolution can mean a lot of different things. For my purposes I'll divide it in two and explain what each is. materialist evolution: The theory that genetic change, probably through genetic mutations (and other changes), has led to uphill changes in species and has allowed a single celled 'creature' to change into all the living things that we can now observe on earth. creationist evolution: Yes there is such a thing. The theory that all life on earth was created by God but allowed to change within boundaries. That animals may not extend beyond these boundaries, but are still able to adapt and lose data whenever natural selection calls for it, and that this has led to speciation but NOT to uphill evolution, or the creation of new data. The fact of the matter is, you can say that all it takes to get wings is a bit of change in the acid, but its simply not that....simple. I'll prove, using real scientific experiments, that animals aren't allowed to evolve beyond the bounds of their original creation, and that mutations are detrimental because we're dealing with complex genetic 'stories' that random mutations simply cannot alter for the better. I'm not asking anyone to debate this post. Just wait until I bring up my scientific thesis and then we can get started. I just wanted to bring up a few preliminary points in this post about how absolutely hateful you materialists are. Oh yeah, one more thing. Quote:
Perhaps there is no more point in trying to reason with them, or educate them. It may be that there will need to be laws put in place that will finally end some this. Perhaps certain actions will have to be taken in the future, such as deprogramming, closing churches, shutting down TV evangelists, freezing accounts for large "mega-ministries", revoking broadcast licenses for religious TV stations, radio, etc.
This is why evolution tends to breed people like Hitler. That's not to say that evolution is responsible for Hitler, but when a theory like evolution crosses someone who is so close-minded that they aren't willing to accept that they might be wrong and that anyone who disagrees isn't as 'great' of a person as they are that's when we run into problems. People like you display more traits of insanity than creationists.
I seriously hope you were joking about this paragraph, because if you weren't then that's absolutely disgusting. I have a lot of problems with these so called 'evangelists' myself, but I'm not going to resort to fascism to remove them from society. That's not what freedom is about.
Anyway, sorry to divert from the science of this thread. I'll bring things to the down and dirty in a short while. Until then...
Oh yeah, unless you want to contest or add to my definitions of evolution, then I'm not going to discuss anything brought up in this thread outside of the arena of science. I've probably already annoyed the admins with this post as it is and I don't want to get off topic too much.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
