CrackerJax
New Member
He thinks finding a flaw in science equates to validation of a myth. 
Religion Has Done More Bad Than Good
- Thread starter grape swisha
- Start date
dontexist21
Well-Known Member
Fish it seems that you have never studied science, so stop pretending that you understand it. There is proof of evolution, if you just look at viruses and bacteria. Over time they have evolved to combat our medicines. And since viruses and bacteria can have new generations at a much much faster rate then any species. Have you wondered why penicillin is not as effective as it was a few decades ago. That is because we used it so much that certain variations of viruses that were immune to the drug were able to survive and reproduce. This is the basis of evolution the strong survive and pass on their genes to the next generations. Over time the mutations that were favorable to survival build up on each other. If you study DNA, most of it is actually unused genes from the species that we evolved from. There are certain cases of people having genetic defects which makes it so that these genes show up again. Such as people being born with tails, or people being born with excessive amounts of hair. Just because you wish to ignore things does not make it so that it is not there.
Science does have holes in it, but that is because scientist do not understand everything, and do not claim that they do. They research and try to answer the questions that they do not understand. Unlike religion which just accepts everything. Tell me why your religion is right, and not some ancient tribe in Africa (which the Vatican has had a fun time destroying that continent over time, destroying my peoples heritage in place of their views). I unlike you do not believe things on faith, I have to have proof that has been tested over time. And the problem with anyone saying that a religion is true is that is it cannot be tested, and you have to just believe it. 99% of scientist believe that the earth is around 4.5 years old. This website http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
also disproves every accusation that you have about the young earth theory. Here is just one argument disproving you decaying magnetic field theory:
2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.
There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:
While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.
There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (198
.Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.
Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.
For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-10
or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:
Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 37-3
Jansma (1985, pp. 61-62)
Morris (1974, pp. 157-15
Wysong (1976, pp. 160-161)
Stop pretending you understand science when you get your facts from a website that has no scientific legitimacy. All Science in the end is assumptions, assumptions with data behind it. Religion is assumptions with nothing; you cannot say the bible since I can not test the bible or any religious document to disprove it. Science leaves the possibility to disprove any notion, unlike religion.
fish601
Active Member
I dont know science no more than i know math,
Do these people know science?
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
- Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
- Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist<LI sizset="106" sizcache="8">Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics <LI sizset="107" sizcache="8">Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
- Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
- Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist<LI sizset="108" sizcache="8">Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
- Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist<LI sizset="109" sizcache="8">Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics <LI sizset="110" sizcache="8">Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
- Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
- Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
- Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology<LI sizset="111" sizcache="8">Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
- Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer<LI sizset="112" sizcache="8">Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
- Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
- Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
- Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics<LI sizset="113" sizcache="8">Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
- Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
- Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering<LI sizset="114" sizcache="8">Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
- Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education<LI sizset="115" sizcache="8">Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
- Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist<LI sizset="116" sizcache="8">Dr. Bob Compton, DVM <LI sizset="117" sizcache="8">Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist <LI sizset="118" sizcache="8">Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist <LI sizset="119" sizcache="8">Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
- Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
- Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist<LI sizset="120" sizcache="8">Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
- Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist<LI sizset="121" sizcache="8">Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany <LI sizset="122" sizcache="8">Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
- Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry<LI sizset="123" sizcache="8">Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education <LI sizset="124" sizcache="8">Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience <LI sizset="125" sizcache="8">Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div <LI sizset="126" sizcache="8">Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist <LI sizset="127" sizcache="8">Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research <LI sizset="128" sizcache="8">Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research <LI sizset="129" sizcache="8">Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
- Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist<LI sizset="130" sizcache="8">Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics <LI sizset="131" sizcache="8">Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy <LI sizset="132" sizcache="8">Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology <LI sizset="133" sizcache="8">Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry <LI sizset="134" sizcache="8">Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
- Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science<LI sizset="135" sizcache="8">Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research <LI sizset="136" sizcache="8">Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist <LI sizset="137" sizcache="8">Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist <LI sizset="138" sizcache="8">Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist <LI sizset="139" sizcache="8">Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon <LI sizset="140" sizcache="8">Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
- Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
- Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
- Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
- Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
- Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
- Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
- Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)<LI sizset="141" sizcache="8">Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist <LI sizset="142" sizcache="8">Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
- Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
- Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
- Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
- Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
- Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service<LI sizset="143" sizcache="8">Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist <LI sizset="144" sizcache="8">Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science <LI sizset="145" sizcache="8">Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry <LI sizset="146" sizcache="8">Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
- Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist<LI sizset="147" sizcache="8">Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
- Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics<LI sizset="148" sizcache="8">Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy <LI sizset="149" sizcache="8">George T. Javor, Biochemistry
- Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology<LI sizset="150" sizcache="8">Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
- Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
- Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
- Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
- Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
- Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
- Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
- Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
- Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
- Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
- Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
- Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
- Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
- Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
- Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
- Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
- Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
- Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology<LI sizset="151" sizcache="8">Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
- Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
- Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
- Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
- Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist<LI sizset="152" sizcache="8">Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
- Dr. Alan Love, Chemist<LI sizset="153" sizcache="8">Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist: <LI sizset="154" sizcache="8">Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
- Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry<LI sizset="155" sizcache="8">Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher <LI sizset="156" sizcache="8">Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
- Dr. John McEwan, Chemist<LI sizset="157" sizcache="8">Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics <LI sizset="158" sizcache="8">Dr. David Menton, Anatomist <LI sizset="159" sizcache="8">Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist <LI sizset="160" sizcache="8">Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
- Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist<LI sizset="161" sizcache="8">Colin W. Mitchell, Geography <LI sizset="162" sizcache="8">Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
- Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator<LI sizset="163" sizcache="8">Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist <LI sizset="164" sizcache="8">Dr. Henry M. Morris (19182006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research. <LI sizset="166" sizcache="8">Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist <LI sizset="167" sizcache="8">Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
- Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
- Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist<LI sizset="168" sizcache="8">Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology <LI sizset="169" sizcache="8">Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
- Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering<LI sizset="170" sizcache="8">Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
- Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
- Prof. John Oller, Linguistics<LI sizset="171" sizcache="8">Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
- Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
- Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist<LI sizset="172" sizcache="8">Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
- Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
- Prof. Richard Porter<LI sizset="173" sizcache="8">Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics <LI sizset="174" sizcache="8">Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
- Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.<LI sizset="175" sizcache="8">Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
- Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
- Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist<LI sizset="176" sizcache="8">Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
- Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry<LI sizset="177" sizcache="8">Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
- Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
- Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
- Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
- Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
- Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
- Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
- Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
- Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
- Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
- Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (19151995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer<LI sizset="178" sizcache="8">Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
- Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science<LI sizset="179" sizcache="8">Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology <LI sizset="180" sizcache="8">Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education <LI sizset="181" sizcache="8">Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer <LI sizset="182" sizcache="8">Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
- Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics<LI sizset="183" sizcache="8">Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering <LI sizset="184" sizcache="8">Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics <LI sizset="185" sizcache="8">Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
- Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry<LI sizset="186" sizcache="8">Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist: <LI sizset="187" sizcache="8">Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science <LI sizset="188" sizcache="8">Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
- Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
- Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (18921979) Surgeon
- Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering<LI sizset="189" sizcache="8">Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
- Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
- Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)<LI sizset="190" sizcache="8">Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics <LI sizset="191" sizcache="8">Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
- Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
- Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist<LI sizset="192" sizcache="8">Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist <LI sizset="193" sizcache="8">Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
- Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics<LI sizset="194" sizcache="8">Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
- Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
- Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology<LI sizset="195" sizcache="8">Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
- Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
- Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
dontexist21
Well-Known Member
You can list names of scientist all day, but just because you have a PhD in you name does not mean anything if you cannot support your argument. I also do not know the credentials of the scientist, I question everything do not take every thing at face value. You also listed a philosopher, which is not a scientist. Many of the arguments made by creationist are based on warped data, as I have shown in my previous post. I don't in scientist, that would make it religion, I believe in the data which is the science. Creationism is not a science, there is no data or proof, and it can not be tested, since all theories have a common link. Saying that God started it all, you cannot prove or disprove God, so it cannot be tested. If you can not test it is not a science. There are scientist that accept creationism, but can not back it up with data that is clear and consistent, that can be later tested. I doubt that they can. Much of the "data" which they use is extremely old and faulty.
CrackerJax
New Member
As usual Fish, you look at things backward.
It is the Bible which is the assumption, not science.
pinkus
New Member
Fish...you refuse to even entertain the possibility you are wrong. The possibility of being wrong is necessary to test anything scientifically. hence, you really aren't playing on a level playing field.
AGAIN Faith by definition does not need proof...so do yourself and all these other people a favor and quit pretending you want proof...no proof will ever suffice. so go to church, i'll meditate on your sorry fate.
AGAIN Faith by definition does not need proof...so do yourself and all these other people a favor and quit pretending you want proof...no proof will ever suffice. so go to church, i'll meditate on your sorry fate.
dontexist21
Well-Known Member
Creationism CANNOT be a science because at its core is states that God is the creator of everything. You cannot test God to prove or disprove he/she/it exist, so you do not have a science. FACT. That takes away the credibility of anyone that tries to use creationism as a alternative to evolution when looking at it from a scientific point of view. Creationist use completely different set of data to base their views on false information below I give you 10 pieces of evidence that creationist use to justify their claims, and 10 reasons refuting and proving tat they are wrong. This was found here
Evidence 1.
Atomic clocks, which have for the last 22 years measured the earth's spin rate to the nearest billionth of a second, have consistently found that the earth is slowing down at a rate of almost one second a year. If the earth were billions of years old, its initial spin rate would have been fantastically rapid--so rapid that major distortion in the shape of the earth would have occurred. a) Arthur Fisher, "The Riddle of the leap Second," Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973, pp. 110-113, 164-166. b) Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, Earth Motions and Their Effect on Air Force Systems, November 1975, p. 6. c) Jack Fincher, "And Now, Atomic Clocks," Readers' Digest, Vol. III, November 1977, p. 34.
Response:
As explained on the Leapsecond page of the National Earth Orientation Service, the true spindown rate of the earth is 1.5 to 2 milliseconds per day per century. That means that after 100 years, the length of day has systematically increased (on average) 0.0015 to 0.002 seconds. This is also found, for instance, in Kurt Lambecks's book "The Earth's Variable Rotation" (Cambridge University Press, 1980; currently out of print), page 3. This is a long-term secular variation. As Lambeck and numerous others point out, there are variations on the length of day that range from daily to seasonal in scale, so that the true length of day can vary greatly from day to day, over multi-year time scales.
The author of this argument has failed to realize that one second as defind by the rotation of the earth is slightly longer than one second as defined by atomic clocks. So the earth-rotation time scale runs about 2 milliseconds per day behind the atomic clock scale (because the two use seconds that are not the same length). The leap second is a convenient device for keeping the two timescales always within 0.9 seconds of each other. It is not a result of the earth slowing down by one second per year.
Evidence 2.
Direct measurements of the earths magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years. a) Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973).
Response:
The argument in general is very weak. The argument as made by Barnes is directly false. I have already written an extensive critique of Barnes' work, which is found in the talk.origins archive. Barnes' argument is tightly circular and illogical, since it directly assumes the truth of the proposition to be proved. Barnes makes the simplistic mistake of extraplating an empirical fit to a 150 year data set over a 10,000 year range and claims the extrapolation is valid! Barnes wrongly insists that dynamo action is forbidden by Cowling's theorem, ignoring the fact that Cowling himself had already proven that this could not be true, 15 years before Barnes published his book! A very poor argument.
Evidence 3.
The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young. a) Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10-14.
Response:
Directly false. Current observation & measurement shows that the rate of helium loss from the atmosphere balances the rate of production through radioactive decay in the crust and mantle. Cook was unaware of the loss of ionized helium along polar magnetic field lines, as are more current champions of the same argument. A detailed response is available.
Evidence 4.
There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of meteorites in sedimentary material. If the sediments, which have an average depth of 1½ miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions of years, any of these steadily falling meteorites should have been discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited rapidly; furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently. a) Peter A. Steveson, "Meteoric Evidence or a Young Earth," Creation Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, June, 1975, pp. 23-25.
Response:
Directly false. Meteorites in fossilized sediments are rare, but they do exist. And meteoritic dust and debris are quite common in sediments. There are also a few hundred undeniable impact structures (i.e. craters) on the earth. A detailed response is available.
Evidence 5.
The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth is such that after 5 billion years, the equivalent of 182 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there should be an exceedingly large amount of nickel in the crustal rocks of the earth. No such concentration has been found--on land or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be young. a) Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), pp. 151-153. b) Steveson, pp. 23-25. c) Hans Peterson, "Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust," Scientific American, Vol. 202, February, 1960, p. 132.
Evidence 6.
If the moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated extensive layers of space dust--possibly a mile in thickness. Before instruments were placed on the moon, NASA was very concerned that our astronauts would sink into a sea of dust. This did not happen; there is very little space dust on the moon. Conclusion: the moon is young.
Response:
Since items 5 & 6 deal with essentially the same thing, that being the accumulation rate of interplanetary dust, on either the earth or the moon, I have taken them together. The short answer is that this argument is diirectly false. The accumulation rate of meteorite dust is now known by way of direct observation. That measured rate is inconsistent with the young-earth argument. Add to this the fact that the citation of Pettersson's work is not correct, and you get an argument that was already weak when it was originally generated, but now stands simply falsified. A more detailed response is available.
Evidence 7.
The sun acts as a giant vacuum cleaner which sweeps up about 100,000 tons of micrometeoriods per day. If the solar system were just 10,000 years old, no micrometeoriods should remain since there is no significant source of replenishment. A large disk shaped cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: the solar system is less than 10,000 years old. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 60-61.
Response:
Directly false. While it is true that the dynamic lifetime of dust in the solar system is short compared to the age of the solar system, the statement that there is no significant source of replenishment is known to be false. A detailed response is available.
Evidence 8.
Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses infer that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 yearsa. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much.b-c Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their evolution that began a thousand million years ago. a)"Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September, 1979, pp. 17-19. b) David W. Dunham, et. al., "Observations of a Probable Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979," Science, Vol. 210, December 12, 1980, pp. 1243-1245. c) Irwin I. Shapiro, "Is the Sun Shrinking?", Science, Vol. 208, April 4, 1980, pp. 51-53.
Response:
Directly false. The original proponents of this argument failed to appreciate the fact that the study cited by Dunham was never published. In fact, it was revoked by the authors prior to publication when they realized that their own data were flawed. Current detailed observations show that the sun is not shrinking in radius, but may pulsate slowly over a solar cycle period of about 11 years. Theory suggests that the sun is slowly expanding over time. A detailed response is available.
Evidence 9.
Short period comets "boil off" some of their mass each time they pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000 years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar system must be less than 10,000 years old.
Response:
Directly false. This argument suuffers from the same fatal flaw as the dust arguments: the denial of a significant source of replenishment, when there are strong data to show the opposite. The argument is even more seriously damaged by the detection of the Kuiper belt. A detailed response is available.
Evidence 10.
Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the energy they receive from the sun. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from radioactive decay or gravitational contraction. The only other conceivable explanation is that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off. a) H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie, Jr., "The Internal Powers and Effective Temperature of Jupiter and Saturn,: The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, Jul, 1969, pp. 169-172. b) "Close Encounter with Saturn," Time, November 10, 1980, p.78. c) Steidl, pp. 51-52, 55.
Response:
True, although some of the details are slightly in error. All of the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) radiate more energy than they receive from the sun. The worst offender in that way is Neptune. The reason given is also correct, the planets indeed have not had time to cool off. However, the author of this argument naively fails to appreciate that it takes several billion years for masses of these sizes to cool off, and that there are significant sources of internal heat other than heavy isotope radioactive decay (such as internal viscous friction from helium settling out in the mostly hydrogen mantles). So the creationists are right on this one, but it still doesn't help. Is a more detailed response necessary?
Again your statement about something you do not know about is wrong, since creationist are NOT looking at the same data real scientist are.
fish601
Active Member
I have been wrong and admited it
there are smarter people than you and I that debated this so i guess one cant prove the other wrong. If there was just one piece of evidence 100% fact on one side and none on the other we would all have to believe that one.
If scienced ever does proved humans evolved from monkeys i would have to believe that. But so far they have not. if they could prove big bang or how old the earth is i would have to believe that but they havent i really dont care how old the earth is Nor do i care if we evolved i would just say that was in gods plan but how could you ever prove there is or isnt a god unless he wanted it that way so i guess we are left with faith, me faith in God you faith in science
pinkus
New Member
you know, i've been defending your right to your beliefs and I've been tellings others not to call others names. you are damn close to name calling and i'm damn close to writing you off.
nobody has said i have faith in science or anything else. But you continually try to prove the unprovable.... YOU DON'T NEED TO if you have faith.... again (how many times) faith by DEFINITION does not require evidence. that's why it is called faith....as in on good faith.
CrackerJax
New Member
Fish, ....amazing. Religion has been proven wrong over and over again, but you are blind to it. "But the book says", or read scripture so and so is not a defense. The Bible is not a historical reference of any accuracy, and it is not a book of science. It is neither and the only verification lies within it's own bindings. A theory cannot be proven by simply stating the theory over an over again. It must be testable and verifiable. The Bible is NOT either of these.
But let's use your faulty premise for a bit. You need 100% proof of evidence for "either" side to believe.
This means you don't believe EITHER theory. No creationism, no evolution.
By your own words.....
sandmonkey
Well-Known Member
Fish, you make the rest of us monotheists look like idiots.
Quit before you reveal more of your ignorance and further embarrass yourself.
Quit before you reveal more of your ignorance and further embarrass yourself.
CrackerJax
New Member
I had mono once, but I got over it.... 
There is no such thing as good or bad ? think about it..... We all have to TRY and live by the law and some cases religion law aswell. Law and Religion Tells us what is right or wrong, and we should all know that Law and religion is always changing therefore there must be a case for saying that religion and law is not always right.
All Religions I believe were to serve a purpose..... CONTROL.... controling the masses to do what the people who created the religion.... to do what they want them to. These groups of people have been around for a very long time and past on there power through family. People always are talking about the three classes of people but in fact there are four.... working class, middle class, upper class and the ELITE
. The Elite control you and me... via the media... Banks (credit Debt), Religion, Law (goverment), school,football (keep your mind of things that really matter) infact they create money out of thin air and now changed the word slave to the word work...without anyone really knowing the difference. They pay you nothing for your freedom and we are obliged feel lucky that we go to work. If you like me understand this in alot more depth then you will also understand that we can not do anything about this because we have to face everybody first, before we can make any changes. Ie. your family, your friends, the neighbour, the man or women on the street, the media and so on. Its near enough impossible to fight all these people. I told my mum once when I was young that I did not want to get a job ! because I did not want to be a good little slave for anyone. She fliped and went crazy... I lost the battle and was thrown out onto the street.
When I talk about the elite you have to remember that these people are familys of people who own most everything, including your king or queen, goverment and they are not interested in being in the media lime light like most people. They also dont get on with each other aswell but serve a common purpose and that is to control everthing. To have control you need to create many things ... ie.. fear... Religion uses it to make sure the believers behave in the way they want. Goverment use the word terrorist, weapons of mass destructions to do what they want for there superiors. If you get the masses to be scared then you can get them to agree to anything you want... Think about it and look at all the evidence out there to see this is the case.
The word Terrorist is used in away that people dont even think for themselves. Think about it.... The word Terrorist and Freedom fighter is very closley linked. The biggest Terrorist act in living history was the nuke bomb that landed in japan... Those who say that America are bad are labeled as Terroist Why... I dont understand this. Why do people believe the media all the time.... Why do some people dont question there religions, Why do some people believe in religion and then go and kill innocent people or in fact anyone even if they are guilty. This amazes me... If I was Religious I would not fight anyone and kill no one as I believe that god will judge all in time....This goes for 99% of all religions. So therefore can one assume that religious people are not really religious ??? and those who think they are are deluded???
So the original question was is Religion bad and caused most wars ??? Religion is not bad in my view but there to control those who can not think for themselves....and there were lots of barbaric people along time ago not knowing what harm they were doing to one another. I Think that it is man who is responsible for all wars and we should all feel guilty as we have all particapated in one way or another without you even knowing you have. i.e not voting or voting the war mongering party, those who do not question what is put in front of them, those who believe and support Religion and those who dont care about politics. Because of your actions or no actions you are involved wether you like it or not.
We should always question EVERYTHING EVERYTHING EVERYTHING EVERYTHING and like I said there is no such thing as good or bad....But we have something which we should all use... Thats Common sense.... use it.... Ignnorance will devide us all, we need to learn to love each other regardless of colour skin or anything else because we all share this world. Are real enemys are those who are the biggest Hypocrites of them all and fooling us all every day and taking our freedom away from us. Dont listen to those who tell you to forget the past and move on.... Learn from the past as all the evidence and facts are there for you and most things happening now have already happened in the past but in slighty different ways. The past will provide you a better understanding of how things are and have always been.
Dont be fooled... Peace to you all.
All Religions I believe were to serve a purpose..... CONTROL.... controling the masses to do what the people who created the religion.... to do what they want them to. These groups of people have been around for a very long time and past on there power through family. People always are talking about the three classes of people but in fact there are four.... working class, middle class, upper class and the ELITE
. The Elite control you and me... via the media... Banks (credit Debt), Religion, Law (goverment), school,football (keep your mind of things that really matter) infact they create money out of thin air and now changed the word slave to the word work...without anyone really knowing the difference. They pay you nothing for your freedom and we are obliged feel lucky that we go to work. If you like me understand this in alot more depth then you will also understand that we can not do anything about this because we have to face everybody first, before we can make any changes. Ie. your family, your friends, the neighbour, the man or women on the street, the media and so on. Its near enough impossible to fight all these people. I told my mum once when I was young that I did not want to get a job ! because I did not want to be a good little slave for anyone. She fliped and went crazy... I lost the battle and was thrown out onto the street.When I talk about the elite you have to remember that these people are familys of people who own most everything, including your king or queen, goverment and they are not interested in being in the media lime light like most people. They also dont get on with each other aswell but serve a common purpose and that is to control everthing. To have control you need to create many things ... ie.. fear... Religion uses it to make sure the believers behave in the way they want. Goverment use the word terrorist, weapons of mass destructions to do what they want for there superiors. If you get the masses to be scared then you can get them to agree to anything you want... Think about it and look at all the evidence out there to see this is the case.
The word Terrorist is used in away that people dont even think for themselves. Think about it.... The word Terrorist and Freedom fighter is very closley linked. The biggest Terrorist act in living history was the nuke bomb that landed in japan... Those who say that America are bad are labeled as Terroist Why... I dont understand this. Why do people believe the media all the time.... Why do some people dont question there religions, Why do some people believe in religion and then go and kill innocent people or in fact anyone even if they are guilty. This amazes me... If I was Religious I would not fight anyone and kill no one as I believe that god will judge all in time....This goes for 99% of all religions. So therefore can one assume that religious people are not really religious ??? and those who think they are are deluded???
So the original question was is Religion bad and caused most wars ??? Religion is not bad in my view but there to control those who can not think for themselves....and there were lots of barbaric people along time ago not knowing what harm they were doing to one another. I Think that it is man who is responsible for all wars and we should all feel guilty as we have all particapated in one way or another without you even knowing you have. i.e not voting or voting the war mongering party, those who do not question what is put in front of them, those who believe and support Religion and those who dont care about politics. Because of your actions or no actions you are involved wether you like it or not.
We should always question EVERYTHING EVERYTHING EVERYTHING EVERYTHING and like I said there is no such thing as good or bad....But we have something which we should all use... Thats Common sense.... use it.... Ignnorance will devide us all, we need to learn to love each other regardless of colour skin or anything else because we all share this world. Are real enemys are those who are the biggest Hypocrites of them all and fooling us all every day and taking our freedom away from us. Dont listen to those who tell you to forget the past and move on.... Learn from the past as all the evidence and facts are there for you and most things happening now have already happened in the past but in slighty different ways. The past will provide you a better understanding of how things are and have always been.
Dont be fooled... Peace to you all.
fish601
Active Member
I believe creationism, i said i would need to show you 100% proof to make you believe.
I do have 100% proof i just cant make you see it
pinkus
New Member
Sandmonkey...thankyou!!!
i'm not a monotheist, but am glad to have the right to chose. +rep
Edit: i forgot my no name calling policy....guess you said what i've been thinking all along.
