Continue the debate in here

Page 6 of 15 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:23 am

Let me begin by saying that you have yet to provide any evidence for your beliefs. For example you state that macroevolution would take a long time to occur, and claim that evolution is impossible because the Earth is 6000 years old. You have provided absolutely no evidence to support your claim of a young Earth. So in order for you to satisfy the argument you need to prove that macroevolution does not occur, the Earth is 6000 years old and that current dating methods are incorrect i.e. carbon etc. You have yet to do this, so I will continue to wait for you to do so.
Here is an interesting article about evidence for a young earth: http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
The Receding moon proves that the earth must be less than 750 million years old.

The oil pressure proves the Earth is young.

The sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth.
You can read the rest of the article for more examples of evidence for a young earth.

Problems with macro evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthony5429/Evidence_against_gradual_macroevolution
Have a look at this article:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5862/creation.html

And you can have a read of this blog: http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2005/07/challenges-to-macroevolutionary-theory.html

Also have a read of this article detailing how molecular biology has disproved the descent of man theory: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b47d7b94f92.htm

Here is an interesting article about carbon dating: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
That article also provides evidence for a young Earth. I quote:
Many physical evidence contradict the ‘billions of years’
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
• Evidence for a 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 many 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, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris26 and Austin.27
• Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.28
• The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the Flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.29, 30
• Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.30
• 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 physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (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.31
• The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, 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 to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks.32
• Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.
You might find this interesting. Here is a list of scientists who are skeptical about random mutation and natural selection:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Liam I would like to know your answers to these questions:

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from? What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:22 am

Yet again you have failed in your premise. You were supposed to provide evidence for a young Earth and you haven't. All you have done is provide links to websites that make claims based on flawed knowledge. Some of the links don't even prove YOUR view. You said:

The Receding moon proves that the earth must be less than 750 million years old.

If that is so, then you still have to prove the Earth is 6000 years old, which is what you believe, nothing over that age will suffice. And just to show you that your 'proof' is flawed, I will point you to a rebuke:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

By the way, you have yet to say 'Why' you believe the 'scientists' who claim a young Earth and why you don't believe real scientists? Do you think that Francis Collins is less of a Christian because he accepts evolution? All scientists are sceptical, just because some are sceptical, does not mean they are right. Could you please tell me how many of those discovery institute 'scientists' are non-Christian?


Last edited by on Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:33 am; edited 1 time in total

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:32 am

Another thing:

This link, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b47d7b94f92.htm. Not only is it wrong, but it also suggests that the Earth is at most 50,000 years old, not by any way, near 6,000. So is this article right, in that it disproves evolution? And wrong, as the Earth is only 6,000 years old? It cannot be both!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:45 am

By the way, you have yet to say 'Why' you believe the 'scientists' who claim a young Earth and why you don't believe real scientists? Do you think that Francis Collins is less of a Christian because he accepts evolution? All scientists are sceptical, just because some are sceptical, does not mean they are right. Could you please tell me how many of those discovery institute 'scientists' are non-Christian?
The thing is you look to science and scientists for your evidence. If a scientist considers the possibility that God could be real then theres a good chance that scientist would be a Christian. Do you stop taking seriously any scientists once they become Christians?

Do you think that Francis Collins is less of a Christian because he accepts evolution?
Its possible to be a born again Christian and to have gotten your interpretation about Genesis wrong. The thing is though if you take a literal interpretation of Genesis (ie. God creates the universe in 6 days) then its difficult to allow for evolution, that is in full blown macro evolution. I do not believe in theistic evolution.

This link, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b47d7b94f92.htm. Not only is it wrong, but it also suggests that the Earth is at most 50,000 years old, not by any way, near 6,000. So is this article right, in that it disproves evolution? And wrong, as the Earth is only 6,000 years old? It cannot be both!
Why state that that article is wrong and then ask if it is right? You've already obviously made up your mind on that article. The article gives proof for a young earth, younger than 50000. An age of the earth between 6000 years and 10000 years makes sense with what the Bible says.

By the way Liam I would like to know your answers to these questions:

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from? What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

C. S. Lewis was an atheist and then he became a Christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
[edit] Conversion to Christianity

Although raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland, Lewis became an atheist at the age of 13, and remained as such until he was 31 years old. His separation from Christianity began when he started to view his religion as a chore and as a duty; around this time he also gained an interest in the occult as his studies expanded to include such topics. Lewis quoted Lucretius as having one of the strongest arguments for atheism:

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam
Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa (Lucretius)

"Had God designed the world, it would not be
A world so frail and faulty as we see."

Though an atheist at the time, Lewis later described his young self (in Surprised by Joy) as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing".

Lewis's interest in fantasy and mythology, especially in relation to the works of George MacDonald, was part of what turned him from atheism. In fact, MacDonald's position as a Christian fantasy writer was very influential on Lewis. This can be seen particularly well through this passage in The Great Divorce, chapter nine, when the semi-autobiographical main character meets MacDonald in Heaven:

…I tried, trembling, to tell this man all that his writings had done for me. I tried to tell how a certain frosty afternoon at Leatherhead Station when I had first bought a copy of Phantastes (being then about sixteen years old) had been to me what the first sight of Beatrice had been to Dante: Here begins the new life. I started to confess how long that Life had delayed in the region of imagination merely: how slowly and reluctantly I had come to admit that his Christendom had more than an accidental connexion with it, how hard I had tried not to see the true name of the quality which first met me in his books is Holiness. (Lewis 1946, pp. 66–67)

Influenced by arguments with his Oxford colleague and friend J. R. R. Tolkien, and by the book The Everlasting Man by Roman Catholic convert G. K. Chesterton, he slowly rediscovered Christianity. He fought greatly up to the moment of his conversion noting, "I came into Christianity kicking and screaming." He described his last struggle in Surprised by Joy:

You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. (Lewis 1966)

After his conversion to theism in 1929, Lewis converted to Christianity in 1931. Following a long discussion and late-night walk with his close friends Tolkien and Hugo Dyson, he records making a specific commitment to Christian belief while on his way to the zoo with his brother. He became a member of the Church of England — somewhat to the disappointment of the devout Catholic Tolkien, who had hoped he would convert to Roman Catholicism (Carpenter 2006).[2]

A committed Anglican, Lewis upheld a largely orthodox Anglican theology, though in his apologetic writings, he made an effort to avoid espousing any one denomination. In his later writings, some believe he proposed ideas such as purification of venial sins after death in purgatory (The Great Divorce) and mortal sin (The Screwtape Letters), which are generally considered to be Catholic teachings. Regardless, Lewis considered himself an entirely orthodox Anglican to the end of his life, reflecting that he had initially attended church only to receive communion and had been repelled by the hymns and the poor quality of the sermons. He later came to consider himself honoured by worshipping with men of faith who came in shabby clothes and work boots and who sang all the verses to all the hymns.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:16 pm

Have you given up on trying to prove your points? Have you actually realised that you have not 'Proof'?

I'm still waiting for you to prove the age of the Earth and how evolution has not and does not occur. You could start by tell me where your age of the Earth comes from?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:20 am

I'm still waiting for you to prove the age of the Earth and how evolution has not and does not occur. You could start by tell me where your age of the Earth comes from?
My age of the Earth comes from the Bible. Plus the article I provided http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm details evidence for a young Earth, including details about helium and lead in Zircons:
22. Zircons:
Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- IF the earth were "billions of years old." In fact, Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling, also wrote a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that:
"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible.”
The evidence of the Zircons clearly proves the earth is young. You can also have a look at this article detailing how helium diffusion age of 6000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm
You can also have a read of this article detailing how Carbon-14 dating shows that the earth is young: http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

And you can read this that details evidence for a young world: http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-384.pdf

Top evidences against evolution: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

Ten major flaws of evolution: http://creationismunleashed.blogspot.com/2005/08/ten-major-flaws-of-evolution.html

That article details problems with methods for dating the Earth:
The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.
The article also goes on to mention left over body structures:
Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.
You can have a read of this that mentions some organs that where thought to be useless (and it includes Coccyx): http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Vestigial.html

I quote:
Here are a few of our "useless" organs, whose function is now known:


The Appendix

This is the classic vestigial organ of evolutionists. It sometimes becomes swollen, and it was noticed that people can survive if it is removed, and was therefore labeled as useless. We now know that it plays a role in antibody production and protects our intestines from infection. The appendix lessens the chances of a person getting leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon and cancer of the ovaries.

The Tonsils

These organs in the throat protect us from infections.

The Coccyx

These are vertebrae found at the bottom of the spine. It was once thought to be useless, a remnant of a tail from our evolutionary past. It has since been discovered that some important muscles attach to it, namely the levator ani and coccygeus. Without it, our pelvic organs would just fall down, we wouldn’t be able to walk, sit upright or have bowel movement.

The Thymus

This "worthless" organ has been discovered to play an important role in the development of the immune system. In this gland lymphocyte and antibody production takes place. Without it, our immune system would not develop properly.

Pineal Gland

Produces vital hormones, such as melatonin. It also affects the functions of other endocrine organs.

Thyroid Gland

Produces the hormone thyroxin that controls metabolism and growth. It’s deficiency at birth causes cretinism.

Pituitary Gland

It is the master endocrine gland which controls and stimulates almost all the other endocrine glands in the body. It ensures proper growth of the skeletal system and control the water balance of the body. It’s malfunctioning causes gigantism, Cushing’s syndrome, dwarfism, diabetes insipidus, acromegaly, etc.
Not all evolutionists think that dating methods are reliable. Heres an interesting article: http://www.s8int.com/baddating.html

I quote:
Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."

Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation:

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily.

There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.

And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."
Liam, can you answer the following questions in regard to evolution?

http://atheiststooges.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/26-questions-for-evolutionists/
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. How did thought evolve?
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
On another point; you claimed that stem cells can’t be rejected. So are you going to disprove immune rejection? You can have a read of this: http://www.isscr.org/public/SC_rejection.pdf

So in certain circumstances stem cells can in fact be rejected by a human body.

------

Liam, are you saved? If you died tonight are you going to Heaven?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:17 am

My age of the Earth comes from the Bible. Plus the article I provided

Let me begin by saying that nowhere in the bible is the age of the Earth mentioned. Am I correct? If so, you have lied, as no such information is contained within the bible. Your ‘age’ comes from Archbishop Usher, not the bible. And how did he come upon this information? By adding all the ages of the people in the bible together, hardly scientific.

Anyway, I will comment on one of your points to show how stupid it in fact is.

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
I have disproved the ‘Receding Moon’ claim, so I’ll move on to ‘Oil Pressure’. This claim is essentially this, the pressure of oil fields would not exist if the Earth was old. Due to rock being porous, the oil would seep through. Your article also makes the claim ‘Perhaps that's because all of our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood, about 4600 years ago?’ Yet, like you provides no evidence for this.

The high pressures show that the oil is contained within an impenetrable rock strong enough to hold such pressure for millions of years. If in fact the oil can seep through the porous rocks, then in fact, there would be no pressure at all. Your article also makes the claim that: ‘Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left. 5,6,7,8’ Yet nowhere on this site does these references exist. Even the ‘Here’s More’ link is dead.

Some idea of the extremely slow speed of fluid motion to be expected can be gained by considering the movement of ground water at shallow depths in dense clays, classed as "impermeable." Under a moderate hydraulic gradient and a reasonable value of permeability for clay, we come up with flow speeds of ground water on the order of 2 to 3 million years per kilometer [3.2 to 4.8 million years per mile]. Yet the permeability of source shales of petroleum is rated at only one-thousandth as great as for clays tested in the surface environment. (Wszolek and Burlingame, 1978, p. 573 )

As for Zircons, a few points.
Producing a billion years of radioactive decay, in a ‘Week’ (as creationists would like to say) would also produce a billion years worth of radioactive heat. This would essentially vaporize the Earth as we know it. And since we are still here, we can safely assume that it didn’t happen.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Zircons_and_the_age_of_Earth
As for your other ‘proofs’ well:

http://creationismunleashed.blogspot.com/2005/08/ten-major-flaws-of-evolution.html

This one was written by Randy Alcorn. A writer, not a biologist! So that is not ‘Proof’!

As for this (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm) Article?

See: http://www.geocities.com/ginkgo100/lapointe.html

I don’t think that article was written by a biologist, I may be wrong, but it saves me a lot of time.

You can have a read of this that mentions some organs that where thought to be useless (and it includes Coccyx):

Vestigial does not mean ‘useless’. A vestige is a trace or sign of something that was left by something that was lost. For example, snakes have leg bones, molars in bats, remnants of eyes are found in some cave fish, toe bones in horses and wing stubs in flightless birds. If all of these animals are designed, then they are not designed very well. However, some vestigial organs are considered useless if experiments show that animals with them survive no better than those without.

Not all evolutionists think that dating methods are reliable.

It depends on what you mean by reliable? Radiocarbon dating is accurate up, but not more than, 50,000 years. Fact! This fact disproves the young earth hypotheses flat out.

Liam, can you answer the following questions in regard to evolution?

No! Simply because the questions are not relevant to evolution. For a start the first 6 have nothing to do with evolution.

On another point; you claimed that stem cells can’t be rejected. So are you going to disprove immune rejection?

No! I apologise, I was wrong in saying that stem cells are never rejected. But it looks like stem cells from an embryo may no longer be required. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7101834.stm

So in certain circumstances stem cells can in fact be rejected by a human body.

Correct!

I doubt you have become a Christian in the past few weeks, so for you to say that you believe in a young Earth based on ‘evidence’ would be a lie. This is obvious because, you have not written more than two sentences of your own words in the past few posts. Not only have you presented pseudoscience as your ‘proof’ your own articles contradict each other. For example, you cannot claim that Earth is only 6000 years old, and no older, but post an article that claims Radiocarbon dating to have an upper limit of 50,000 years. You have yet to point out what the age of the Earth is, you get your estimation form the Bible, but where in the Bible is the age of the Earth mentioned? Please enlighten me.

You have yet to prove a worldwide flood occurred approx 4,000 years ago!
And you have yet to disprove Evolution. Of course, it has stood the test of time for the past 150 years, and only gotten stronger, so I doubt you will be able to disprove it with a few posts, and an ignorant mind.

I think that you, and most young Earth creationists, approach evolution, and attack it with and Argument of Ignorance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance. Michael Behe, the kingpin of ID, has been and is continuing his ignorance. Can you, provide me with a list, or a name of a scientist, with a degree in the relevant fields i.e. Biology, Cosmology or Physics that believes in a Young Earth? Sorry, perhaps I should change this, because it is easy to ‘believe’ in a young Earth, but perhaps proving it would be a better challenge. And could you tell me why YOU believe the ‘writers’ (notice I did not say scientists) that claim evolution to be wrong, yet dismiss the (majority) of scientists who prove it true?

The only reason why scientists believe in God, etc, is because that is all it is, a belief. They cannot prove it! Francis Collins(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins), head of the Human Genome project is a believer, but also a biologist, he cannot prove God, or Jesus, he simply ‘believes’. Professor Robert Winston(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston), believes in God, but cannot prove he exists, or that Moses existed, but he still ‘believes’.
These men are world renowned Scientists, who believe in God. However, they cannot prove God, nor their respective religions. However the science they practice disproves much of their religions, bodily resurrections, exoduses, God-Men etc. But what they do is something Richard Dawkins calls, compartmentalise their beliefs.

I also, repose my question, Prove the Earth is less than 10,000 years old! (And copying an pasting simply won’t cut it!)

Dave, are you a Muslim? If you died tonight are you going to Paradise?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:21 am

Liam, you still haven’t provided answers to the unresolved questions.

I shall provide the Christian answers now:

Why are we here?
We are here because God created us and placed us on this Earth which He also created. In light of this fact humans should be very grateful to God.

What’s our purpose life?
To bring honor, glory and praise to God. We, as humans, fail miserably in this task when we sin.

Where did we come from?
We were created by God. We didn’t exist and then God created us.

What are the origins of life?
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

What happens after we die?
You go to Heaven if your saved and hell if your not.

How can our problem of sin be solved?
Through the sacrifice of Jesus’ death on the cross. Humans are never on their own strength going to be able to deal with sin or be good enough. But through repenting, asking for forgiveness and trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ humans can have their sin problem dealt with and be saved. There is no other way to solve the problem of sin.

So Liam, what are your answers to these unresolved questions?

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:10 pm

You have yet to provide the evidence for your claims!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:39 am

Liam you have yet to answer the unresolved questions. If you reject God can you still answer these questions?

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

If you can answer them, then I would like to know your answers.

I would also like you to have a go answering the evolution questions:

http://atheiststooges.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/26-questions-for-evolutionists/

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. How did thought evolve?
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
You might also like to look at this that details things evolution can’t answer: http://www.ceai.org/fnewsletter/nl06/nl_feb06/questions_evolution.doc

I would also like to know your thoughts on these issues:

Saddam Hussein transporting WMDs out of Iraq before they could be found.
Women having more mental problems long term after having an abortion than women who just miscarriage.
Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life. You can also look into John Newton and how he went from working on the slave ships to being a key person in ending the slave trade.

----

Liam, is it or isn't it true that long time scales are needed for evolution to actually occur? Scientists cannot deny that if the world is less that 10000 years old then macro evolution is impossible.

http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data5.html

I quote:
The Topsy-Turvy Evolutionist Reasons for an Old Earth
Evolutionists would like to say the Earth is old to provide ample time for evolution to work.
We know this is topsy-turvy reasoning because time universally yields devolution, the exact
opposite of evolution. The older the Earth is the greater would be the ravages of time and the greater the certainty that every life form would have devolved to extinction. Everyone observes that life is mortal but the topsy-turvy evolutionists want us to believe that life can go on for millions or billions of years with no end in sight. In spite of trillions of observations by billions of people for thousands of years that life forms devolve, die and go extinct, they want us to believe that life is immortal and will evolve forever. Never seen, evolution is the universe’s topsy-turvy phantom.
Scientists have to suggest long ages of the Earth (millions of years) for macroevolution to even be possible at all, slim as that possibility is. Scientists who reject God and want to believe in evolution interpret the evidence as pointing to an old Earth.

For evidence of a worldwide flood you can read this article:

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide%20flood.htm

Also if you think man didn't coexist with dinosaurs then explain to me why dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible:
Psalms 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.
JOB 40
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
Here are some things that point to the world being young:

Polonium Halos. They suggest rapid formation of Earth’s layers.

Vertically petrified trees: http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-yellowstone_petrified_forests.html

Missing geologic time in the individual layers of The Grand Canyon: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/time.asp
I quote:
‘Thus the observational evidence firmly indicates that at least 155 million years of so-called geological time never happened, invalidating the evolutionists’ whole concept of the geological column and the evolutionary progression of life. On the other hand, this evidence confirms the conclusions of creationists that these breaks and boundaries between rock layers in Grand Canyon represent very little time at all, and in some cases continuous deposition, as would be expected of events during Noah’s year-long Flood.
How do you explain the T-Rex bone found with blood vessels still in it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm

Here is an article that deals with that T-Rex bone:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html
This article deals with DNA and how it breaks down. The article deals with how the bones couldn't be 68 million years old if the blood cells are still intact:
About three years ago (2002) she and her team had to divide a very large T. rex thigh bone in order to transport it on a helicopter. When the bone was opened flexible, even elastic, soft tissue "meat" was found inside. This is incredible because this bone was supposed to be some 68 million years old. Microscopic examination revealed fine delicate blood vessels with what appear to be intact red blood cells and other type of cells like osteocytes - which are bone forming cells. These vessels were still soft, translucent, and flexible. Subsequent examination of other previously excavated T. rex bones from this and other areas have also shown non-fossilized soft tissue preservation in most instances.31
This find calls into question not only the nature of the fossilization process, but also the age of these fossils. How such soft tissue preservation and detail could be realized after 68 million years is more than miraculous - - It is unbelievable! Schweitzer herself comments that, "We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think . . .” 31 Now, if that is not an understatement I'm not sure what is.
So, it seems rather clear, despite the objections of many evolutionists, to include Schweitzer herself, that a 1,000da molecule would elicit an extremely weak response at best and would not necessarily elicit a specific response to a certain type of hemoglobin molecule since surface epitopes are generally more specific in their antigenic nature than are buried epitopes (i.e., heme is somewhat hidden within a cleft of the hemoglobin molecule so 3 or 4 amino acids attached to it would also be somewhat hidden). How then is it remotely logical to suggest that a molecule weighing just over 1,000da (a heme group plus 3 or 4 amino acids) could elicit such a strong as well as specific immune response as Schweitzer et al. observed? In light of the additional recent finds of even more striking soft tissue and blood cell preservation, it seems much more likely that such an immune response so specific for certain types of hemoglobin could only be elicited by a larger portion of intact hemoglobin than many scientists seem to even consider. Of course, one can't really blame them because explaining how delicate soft tissue vessels (with obvious red blood cells inside containing relatively large portions of hemoglobin molecules) could remain intact for over 65 million years seems just a little bit difficult.
The article goes onto conclude that these kind of finds are more consistent with a catastrophic burial:
Such finds are much more consistent with a fairly recent catastrophic burial within just a few thousand years of time. Non-catastrophic burial would allow for rapid biodegradation of such delicate soft tissues. Time itself destroys soft tissues as well as DNA and proteins in short order. Current real-time observations suggest that bio-proteins could not remain intact more than a few tens of thousands of years - 100,000 years at the very outside limit of protein decay. The fact that such proteins are found, intact, in bones supposedly older than 65 million years is simply inconsistent with such an assumed age - by a few orders of magnitude.
And what was the catastrophic burial? The worldwide flood mentioned in the Bible.

You see William, this is one example of how scientists looked at the evidence about something and attempted to fit the evidence into the theory of evolution. The scientists looked at the evidence of the T-Rex bones and concluded with amazement that blood cells could be in something 65 million years old, when in fact the T Rex bones where never that old.

Another article about the T-Rex bones: http://www.montana.edu/news/1111699176.html
I quote:
"I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren't supposed to be there, but there they are," said Schweitzer, lead author of the paper. "I was pretty shocked."
She wouldn't believe the outcome until her technician repeated the experiments about eight times, said Schweitzer, assistant professor in the Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at North Carolina State University in Raleigh and former doctoral student of Horner's.
Horner, listed as third author of the paper, said, "I see this as a really important discovery that will change our methods of collecting and study. We can truly begin asking biomolecular questions. The discovery also means that our preconceived ideas about preservation were wrong."
Scientific reasons for a young Earth: http://www.faceslikeflint.com/?p=66

Liam can you name me one non God believing non Christian scientist who doesn’t try and make scientific evidence fit into the theory of evolution?

You can have a read of this that lists 10 reasons why the majority of scientists believe in evolution: http://www.twoorthree.net/2006/12/mass_delusion_w.html

Also this, ten reasons evolution is wrong: http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html


Last edited by on Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:49 am; edited 4 times in total

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:39 am

Another interesting article: http://www.ukapologetics.net/evolutiontruth.htm
I quote:
Here are just a few of many amazing admissions about evolution;

Charles Darwin: "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think fatal to the theory."
Toward the end of his life, Darwin openly admitted: "Not one change of species into another is on record.... We cannot prove that a single species has changed into another." Darwin, Charles, My life and Letters, Vol. 1. Page 2 10.

Thomas Huxley said that "evolution was not an established theory but a tentative hypothesis, an extremely valuable and even probable hypothesis, but a hypothesis none the less." Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Doubleday and Co., New York, 1859, page 366.

Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institute, stated: "There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life. There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkeys.... He appeared SUDDENLY and in substantially the same form as he is today.... There are no such things as missing links."
He also said, "So far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists appear to have the best of the argument. There is NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT ANY ONE OF THE MAJOR GROUPS AROSE FROM ANY OTHER. Each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as a species and distinct creation." Meldau, Fred John, Witness Against Evolution, Christian Victory Publishing Co., Denver, Colo., 1953, page 39, 40, 73.

William Herschel (1738-1822), who discovered Uranus and built some of the world's greatest telescopes, said, "The undevout astronomer must be mad." Cited by Henry M. Morris, 'Men of Science - Men of God' page30.

Professor Albert Fleishman, professor of Comparative Anatomy at Erlangen University, said, "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." Fleishman, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pages 194, 195.

Sir William Dawson, Canada's great geologist, said of evolution: "It is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is utterly destitute of proof." Dawson, Sir William, Story of Earth and Man, page 317.

Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous physicist and Nobel prize winner, said, "Everyone who reflects believes in God." Millikan, Robert A., The Commentator, June 1937.
In an address to the American Chemical Society, he said: "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no scientists can do."

Dr. George Wald, a Nobel prize winner, chooses to believe in evolution even though he said he regards it as a scientific impossibility. He says, "The only alternative to a spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation...." Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, page 100.

Dr. Wernher Von Braun, who masterminded the V-2 rocket of Germany in World War II and the space program of the United States for two decades, said in a speech at Taylor University: "The idea of an orderly universe is inconceivable without God -- the grandeur of the cosmos confirms the certainty of creation. One can't be exposed to the law and order of the universe without becoming aware of a divine intent." Keith, Bill, Scopes II the Great Debate, Huntington House, 1985, page 55.

Richard Goldschmidt, Ph.D., professor of zoology, University of California, said, "Geographic variation as a model of species formation will not stand under thorough scientific investigation. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof .. yet it has been universally accepted. There may be wide diversification within the species ... but the gap (between species) cannot be bridged .... Sub-species do not merge into the species either actually or ideally." Keith, Bill, Scopes II the Great Debate, Huntington House, 1985, pages 55-56.

Dr. Warren Weaver, formerly chairman of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, "Every new discovery of science is a further 'revelation' of the order which God has built into His universe." Weaver, Warren, Look Magazine, April 5, 1955, page 30.

Sir Robert Boyd, Emeritus Professor of Physics at University College, London, says, "I worship an unseen God...getting to know him...changed my whole world-view". God and the Scientists, CPO - Design & Print, page 2.

Gareth Jones, Head of the Anatomy and Structural Biology Department at the University of Otago (New Zealand), considers biblical truth as his "driving force". Ibid., page 6.

Sam Berry who is Professor of Genetics at University College, London, has explained how his considerable research in Antarctica has made him "more and more convinced that God has revealed himself in both creation and the Bible". Ibid., page 11.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:09 pm

Copying and Pasting is not 'Proof' nor evidence!

I would also like you to have a go answering the evolution questions:

They are not about evolution! And they are not YOUR questions!

Liam, is it or isn't it true that long time scales are needed for evolution to actually occur? Scientists cannot deny that if the world is less that 10000 years old then macro evolution is impossible.

Evolution occurs as we speak! Every time you take antibiotics for an infection, evolution is occuring. When my offspring (assuming I have any) evolution will continue! So as you can see long time scales are necessary for the changes you want to see, but they are not necessary for evolution to take place.

Scientists have to suggest long ages of the Earth (millions of years) for macroevolution to even be possible at all, slim as that possibility is. Scientists who reject God and want to believe in evolution interpret the evidence as pointing to an old Earth.

Scientists who 'believe' in evolution, do not do so because they don't believe in God, or they don't want to, it's because they have the evidence that goes against the religious doctrine. Besides, it is not only biologists who state the Earth is old. Palaeontologists, Cosmologists, Physicists and Geologists also agree on the age of the Earth.

Also if you think man didn't coexist with dinosaurs then explain to me why dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible:

The bible is not scientific evidence!

And what was the catastrophic burial? The worldwide flood mentioned in the Bible.

More likely a landslide!

Regarding your question about the T-Rex bone etc, have you actually went to a palaeontology website for an answer? I suggest you do, and stay away from the Christian ones for a while.

Liam can you name me one non God believing non Christian scientist who doesn’t try and make scientific evidence fit into the theory of evolution?

I'm not sure what your asking me here, but I'll have a go. Richard Dawkins, does not MAKE the evidence fit evolution, it already does, which makes evolution more airtight. Whenever a forgery, which I assume is what you are referring to, is found, it is the biologists (evolutionists) who point it out as a forgery. The creationists do not have the expertise to carry out such examinations. Kent Hovind, in his seminars, always points to the forgeries, and he is right to do so, but he makes it sound like it was him how discovered they lies, when in fact it was the biologists. That is what science is! If evidence does not fit a theory, then it is the theory that must go!

You can have a read of this that lists 10 reasons why the majority of scientists believe in evolution:
http://www.twoorthree.net/2006/12/mass_delusion_w.html

As far as I could see, no scientists were mentioned in that link, neither were there more than one footnote. Hardly scientific! Therefore not proof!

I think you are missing the point of this debate. The validity of evolution does not lie in the number of scientists that accept it, it lies in the evidence. Until you prove the evidence for evolution to be false, then you haven't proved anything apart form 'some scientists don't believe in evolution'. Which isn’t the point of this debate.

As for your last post regarding Darwin, and Huxley etc, have you actually read any of these two guys writings? I think not, because if you did, you would realise that Darwin continues explaining the 'faults' and 'difficulties' in his theory, showing them not to be flaws nor difficulties.

Now, are you going to prove your world views, or just copy and paste half truths, and out-of-context quotes.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:27 pm

Liam you have yet to answer the unresolved questions. If you reject God can you still answer these questions?

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

If you can answer them, then I would like to know your answers.

----
I would also like you to have a go answering the evolution questions:


They are not about evolution! And they are not YOUR questions!
Some of them are about evolution. If you believe in evolution surely you should be able to answer them.
Evolution occurs as we speak! Every time you take antibiotics for an infection, evolution is occuring. When my offspring (assuming I have any) evolution will continue! So as you can see long time scales are necessary for the changes you want to see, but they are not necessary for evolution to take place.
I’m talking about humans evolving from single cell organisms. For this feat of evolution to occur, slim as the chances of it ever happening, very long time scales are required. Unless you can show me an example of a creature as complex as a human having evolved from a single cell organism in less than 10000 years. Can you show me that? The chances of all life evolving from single cell organisms is very slim, yet that’s what a lot of the scientists want to believe because they reject God and the Bible. And by suggesting the Earth is 4 billion years old, that allows the scientists to say that even though the odds are stacked against all life evolving from single cell organisms, with an Earth that old there is the slightest of chances that it did actually happen.

And if scientists say evolution occurs with little changes throughout each generation. Well the problem with that is that if a species was threatened with extinction, little changes would be far too slow to make the species adapt before it dies out. How much have humans actually changed in the last 6000 years? Very little. Yet it takes far less time than that for a species to be wiped out.

From an evolutionary point of view, where did disease come from? I can tell you it’s one of the marks of the fall. Before the fall of man there was no disease.

From an evolutionary point of view, can you explain the leap from single cell organisms to multicelled organisms?

It makes more sense to believe that God created the whole World and all the animals and humans fully developed. I also believe dramatic world wide climate change due to a worldwide flood was a significant reason for the dinosaurs dying out.

From an evolutionary point of view, can you explain why humans are the dominant species?
Also if you think man didn't coexist with dinosaurs then explain to me why dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible:


The bible is not scientific evidence!
Do you or don’t you agree that the Bible mentions dinosaurs? And if it mentions dinosaurs, which I believe it does, is this not in favor of humans actually coexisting with dinosaurs?
I'm not sure what your asking me here, but I'll have a go. Richard Dawkins, does not MAKE the evidence fit evolution, it already does, which makes evolution more airtight. Whenever a forgery, which I assume is what you are referring to, is found, it is the biologists (evolutionists) who point it out as a forgery. The creationists do not have the expertise to carry out such examinations. Kent Hovind, in his seminars, always points to the forgeries, and he is right to do so, but he makes it sound like it was him how discovered they lies, when in fact it was the biologists. That is what science is! If evidence does not fit a theory, then it is the theory that must go!
Liam here is a challenge for you: show me transitional fossils that show an animal that was in the process of evolving from one species into another species. For example a fossil of a horse with a slightly longer neck showing horses are evolving into giraffes.

There are loads of different species of animals in the world. If we all came from a common ancestor then species should have evolved into other species and therefore there should be transitional fossils proving this.

If you think a creature crawled out of a pond millions of years ago and evolved legs and then over time evolved into a human, surely there should be fossils for all these transitional life forms. How can there be so many dinosaur fossils yet so few transitional fossils?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:44 pm

You have failed yet again to provide evidence for your claims.

If you believe in evolution surely you should be able to answer them.

First of all, there is no 'belief' required, evolution is a fact, weather you 'believe' or not. Secondly, I can answer the evolution questions, but I won't, for two reasons, 1) They are not YOUR questions, simply plagerisims of someone elses work, which I am sure you havn't even bothered to research for your self, and 2) you have yet to prove your claims, all you do is make assumprions based on an old text.

Liam here is a challenge for you: show me transitional fossils that
show an animal that was in the process of evolving from one species
into another species. For example a fossil of a horse with a slightly
longer neck showing horses are evolving into giraffes.

Sinosauropteryx prima - http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs/diorama/forest.php

Archaeopteryx - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

Among others.

If we all came from a common ancestor then species should have evolved
into other species and therefore there should be transitional fossils
proving this.

Now perhaps you caould use evidence for your claim that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Where are the fossils showing human bones and dinosaur bones in the same place? And in the same strata?

How can there be so many dinosaur fossils yet so few transitional fossils?

For a start, every fossil and living creature IS a transitinal form! You and I are transitional creatures! Our parents are transitional creatures! Zebras are transitional creatures!

May I suggest that you do some reseach into the process of fossilisation. Chances are, that 10,000 years from now, you and I will NOT be fossils, yet we existed!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/dinosaurs/making_fossils/

Now, I will gladly answer any of your questions, but only after you prove your claims with evidance! If you cannot, may I suggest drawinf this *debate* to a conclusion?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:31 am

Liam you have yet to answer the unresolved questions. If you reject God can you still answer these questions?

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

If you can answer them, then I would like to know your answers.

----
First of all, there is no 'belief' required, evolution is a fact, weather you 'believe' or not. Secondly, I can answer the evolution questions, but I won't, for two reasons, 1) They are not YOUR questions, simply plagerisims of someone elses work, which I am sure you havn't even bothered to research for your self, and 2) you have yet to prove your claims, all you do is make assumprions based on an old text.
To be honest I don’t think your being fair considering you took your challenge from Christopher Hitchens and didn’t come up with it yourself:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1882305.ece

I have a challenge that I have issued in America which I’ll put to you. You have to come up with a moral statement made, or a moral action performed by a believer or a person of faith, that could not have been uttered by an unbeliever.
So it is clear that both of us are equally guilty of getting ideas from other people.
Archaeopteryx is a fake.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/473

Many evolutionists have regarded Archaeopteryx lithographica as one of the most important fossils ever discovered, and as a result it has been touted as the perfect example of evolution in action. However, to others the fossil is a perfect example of fraud in action, not evolution. One controversy swirls around the fact that many of the specimens do not show any feather impressions at all, and the two that have impressions both were sold to museums by the Haberlein family (who apparently also handled the single fossil feather). Karl Haberlein sold his fossil in 1861 to the British Museum for 600 pounds, and his son Ernst sold the second one to the Berlin Museum in 1877 for 36,000 gold marks. Some have suggested that this fossil find is nothing more than a small dinosaur that had feather imprints placed on it after it was discovered. In speaking of Archaeopteryx in 1975, John Ostrom wrote:

...these specimens are not particularly like modern birds at all. If feather impressions had not been preserved in the London and Berlin specimens, they [the other specimens—BH/BT] never would have been identified as birds. Instead, they would unquestionably have been labeled as coelurosaurian dinosaurs [such as Compsognathus—BH/BT]. Notice that the last three specimens to be recognized were all misidentified at first, and the Eichstatt specimen for 20 years was thought to be a small specimen of the dinosaur Compsognathus (3:61).

Even a modern-day dinosaur encyclopedia adds doubt as to the validity of this species. “Apart from the proportions of its wings, the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is strikingly similar to that of a small, lightly built, running dinosaur, such as the coelurosaur Compsognathus” (Dixon, et al., 1988, p. 172).

While controversy has surrounded Archaeopteryx for well over 100 years, only within the last fifteen have some scientists begun to question the actual genuineness of some of the fossil finds. Lee Spetner, a respected Israeli scientist, was one of the first to question the validity of certain Archaeopteryx fossils at a meeting of Jewish scientists held in Jerusalem in July 1980. Spetner had studied the British Museum specimen in June 1978, and had pointed out certain discrepancies to Alan Charig, chief curator of fossil amphibians, reptiles, and birds at the Museum. Dr. Spetner went on to publish a brief item titled “Is the Archaeopteryx a Fake?” (1983), and later stated: “Our contention is that the feather impressions were forged onto a fossil of a flying reptile” (1988, p. 15). In 1985, renowned British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle joined Spetner to reiterate the allegations that the feather impressions of Archaeopteryx were, in fact, a forgery—the result of chicken feathers having been pressed into a cement matrix that then was applied to two authentic fossils of a small dinosaur. In his assessment, Hoyle suggested that “the only undeniable featherlike impressions are therefore those on the single feather of 1860, on the British Museum specimen of 1961 and the Berlin specimen of 1877,” each of which had been handled by the Haberlein family (1985, p. 694). After examining the specimen in the British Museum (in addition to numerous photographs), Hoyle argued that the impressions of the feathers in the stone were fakes. The evidence of fossil forgery came from the following:

1. The “double-struck” appearance of the feather imprints, which allegedly resulted from a botched forging job rather than natural preservation.

2. The poor fit of the main slab and counterslab of the London specimen, indicating that the forger had tampered with the fossil layers after the rock had been split open in the quarry.

3. The finer-grained nature of the sediment bearing the feather impressions, in comparison to the coarser sediment embedding the bones (Krishtalka, 1989, p. 98 ).
The Archaeoraptor was also a fraud:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/471

Seven months later, the October 2000 issue of National Geographic contained a five-page article by veteran investigative reporter Lewis M. Simons, describing how this massive debacle transpired (Simons, 2000). [For additional information on how this story unraveled, see also: Dalton, 2000a, 2000b; National Geographic, 2000; Rummo, 2000.] In his National Geographic article, Simons explained how farmers in many regions of China have made a very profitable hobby of selling the fossils they find. The only problem is that these farmers realize that fossil fanciers prefer specimens assembled and suitable for display. Therefore, on occasion the farmers will “doctor” the fossils to follow basic market economics and thus increase the value of their finds. Archaeoraptor actually “evolved” in a Chinese farmhouse where homemade paste was used to glue together two completely different fossils. The result was the now-famous (or infamous, as the case may be) “missing link” that allegedly had the body of a primitive bird with the teeth and the tail of a terrestrial dinosaur.
Unfortunately, National Geographic chose to run its November 1999 story before the “find” had been reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In an effort to capitalize on this rare find, participants in the Archaeoraptor discovery rushed a paper to both Nature and Science but, as USA Today reporter Tim Friend learned, that paper “was never published” (2000). In his report for National Geographic, Simons acknowledged that
...a plan was cobbled together [to] first write a paper and have it published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. National Geographic—which attempts to bridge the gap between hardcore science and popular interpretation—prefers not to break scientific discoveries without having them peer reviewed in advance by scientists. The effort to coordinate publication between Nature and National Geographic would eventually break down, contributing in large measure to the Geographic publishing a false article (2000, 198[4]:130).
With time constraints nipping at its heels, and peer-review rejections piling up, National Geographic decided to go out on a limb (again, no pun intended) and run the story on its own. Writing for Science News, Richard Monastersky observed:
Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery.... “There probably has never been a fossil with a sadder history than this one,” says Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (2000).
In an e-mail to his co-authors and to Sloan, Xu Xing wrote: “I am 100% sure, we have to admit that Archaeoraptor is a faked specimen” (as quoted in Simons, 2000, 198[4]:132).
Proof of that fact was not long in coming. In the March 29, 2001 issue of Nature, Timothy Rowe and his colleagues published the results of their X-ray computed tomography studies on the Archaeoraptor fossil (2001, 410:539-540). Their study documented the fact that “the Archaeoraptor slab was built in three layers,” and concluded that Archaeoraptor
represents two or more species and that it was assembled from at least two, and possibly five, separate specimens. Additional work in China verified that the tail is from an entirely different specimen, which has been described previously as a new species of dromaeosaur. Sadly, parts of at least two significant new specimens were combined in favour of the higher commercial value of the forgery.... Knowing the history of human handling can be critical to proper evaluation and scientific interpretation of specimens (410:540).
That last statement—that “knowing the history of human handling” is considered a prerequisite to accepting a fossil as genuine—presents a sad commentary on the current state of evolutionary theory, does it not? In what other area of science do we encounter such embarrassing forgeries as Haeckel’s “human gill slits,” England’s Piltdown Man, or China’s Archaeoraptor? It seems that all too often someone is prepared to make an outlandish claim—and back it up with what turns out to be “faked” evidence. In their Nature article on the Archaeoraptor forgery, Rowe et al. commented: “Fortunately, a growing array of techniques can now be applied to forensic analysis of fossils” (410:540). Good thing—considering the nature and number of the forgeries that continue to appear!
You can read this BBC News article about the faked Archaeoraptor: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248079.stm

Now perhaps you caould use evidence for your claim that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Where are the fossils showing human bones and dinosaur bones in the same place? And in the same strata?
What about the human footprints found alongside thousands of dinosaur prints on a Turkmenian plateau?
For a start, every fossil and living creature IS a transitinal form! You and I are transitional creatures! Our parents are transitional creatures! Zebras are transitional creatures!
If you claim humans are transitional creatures then can you tell me what gradual changes have taken place in humans over the last 6000 years?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:53 pm

To be honest I don’t think your being fair considering you took your challenge from Christopher Hitchens and didn’t come up with it yourself:
When I 'copied' Hitchens, it wasn't about science it was about opinion! You on the other hand have a habit of copying and pasting, it seems, at random. (I'll show you later)
Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Which of the 10 known Archaeopteryx fossils are fakes? If one is, the obviously the other nine, found at different times and places, are not. For example, on the Maxburg specimen, the feathers continue UNDER the bones and are overlain with dendrites (extensions of the nerve cells) that sometimes form within bedding planes, ruling out the possibility of a forgery.
'Tiny fractures, infilled with calcite, extend through both feathers and bones, showing that they have the same source. They also match perfectly from slab to counterslab, proving that the two fit together...' (Charig 1986)
Not to mention the other feathered dinosaurs found, which are NOT fakes.
The Archaeoraptor was also a fraud:
True, but not a scientific fraud. It was put together by a Chinese fossil hunter, and sold to collectors. The fossils were put together with the intention of making money. Archaeoraptor was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, only in the main press, which I think you will agree, does not make it scientific. However the two parts of the Archaeoraptor are valuable in their own right, they consist of Yanornis martini and Microraptor zhaoianus.
You can read this BBC News article about the faked Archaeoraptor: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248079.stm
Obviously YOU did not read it, you surely can't be as retarded as to use this as evidence that dinosaurs did not evolve to birds, when it clearly says:
The tail turned out to be from a new type of bird-like feathered dinosaur - Microraptor - the smallest, adult dinosaur yet discovered.
What about the human footprints found alongside thousands of dinosaur prints on a Turkmenian plateau?
Well, I must begin by saying that they are not 'fossils' i.e. of living creatures, merely fossils of remnants, much like the Paluxy river hoax. I will not go into too much detail, but below is a link, which points out that there is NO evidence that there are human footprints in this area, but I have to ask, where is your evidence that there ARE human footprints?
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/russ.htm
If you claim humans are transitional creatures then can you tell me what gradual changes have taken place in humans over the last 6000 years?
Where to begin:
The Immune System - Homo sapiens sapiens have evolved a stronger immune system, but unfortunately as we now have antibiotics, the germs and bacteria evolve themselves to become immune to the antibiotics, and our immune system, which in turn evolves.

Physicality - Homo sapiens sapiens, are a lot more fragile that our extinct relative Homo sapiens neandertalensis. Our skull has a higher forehead, less prominent brow-ridges and smaller teeth. This is consistent, with the dawn of the agricultural revolution.

The Mind - Our cognative software, along with our larger brains, allow us to plan, and communicate better.

Civilization - Within the past 10,000 years we have went from hunter-gatherers, living in small tribes/groups (some still survive today, such as Amazonian tribes, and Aborigines). With the dawn of the agricultural revolution, we did not need to 'follow the food' as the food production made it possible for us to stay in the same place, therefore establishing the first towns, which eventually led to the first complex societies.
Around 6,000 years ago, the first proto-states developed in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus Valley. Military forces were formed for protection, and government bureaucracies for administration. States cooperated and competed for resources, in some cases waging wars. Around 2,000 – 3,000 years ago, some states, such as Persia, China, and Rome, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Rise_of_civilization

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:06 am

Liam you have yet to answer the unresolved questions. If you reject God can you still answer these questions?

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

If you can answer them, then I would like to know your answers.

----
Which of the 10 known Archaeopteryx fossils are fakes? If one is, the obviously the other nine, found at different times and places, are not. For example, on the Maxburg specimen, the feathers continue UNDER the bones and are overlain with dendrites (extensions of the nerve cells) that sometimes form within bedding planes, ruling out the possibility of a forgery.
'Tiny fractures, infilled with calcite, extend through both feathers and bones, showing that they have the same source. They also match perfectly from slab to counterslab, proving that the two fit together...' (Charig 1986)
Not to mention the other feathered dinosaurs found, which are NOT fakes.
There are problems with the Archaeopteryx fossils. These issues are covered in this article:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2094

Read the bit under DINOSAURS-TO-BIRDS THEORY—A THEORY FOR THE BIRDS, NOT ABOUT THEM

You can also have a read of this article:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist08.htm

Read the bit under ARCHAEOPTERYX MAY BE A BIRD.

Liam if the Archaeopteryx is a true transitional fossil then we should see the fossils of the dinosaur before (without a single feather), the dinosaur with the feathers and then the bird it became with no traces of dinosaur whatsoever. So Liam please show me 3 sets of fossils; fossils for the dinosaurs, fossils for the Archaeopteryx (we already know about them) and then fossils for the bird the dinosaur became. If you can’t show me those 3 sets of fossils then we have to conclude that Archaeopteryx is just a feathered dinosaur.

If you think birds evolved from dinosaurs can you explain how cold blooded dinosaurs became warm blooded seeing as birds are warm blooded?
True, but not a scientific fraud. It was put together by a Chinese fossil hunter, and sold to collectors. The fossils were put together with the intention of making money. Archaeoraptor was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, only in the main press, which I think you will agree, does not make it scientific. However the two parts of the Archaeoraptor are valuable in their own right, they consist of Yanornis martini and Microraptor zhaoianus.
Yeh National Geographic went ahead and published the article before Archaeoraptor was peer reviewed. If anything the Chinese Archaeoraptor case shows that not all scientific evidence is 100% watertight and error free.
Around 6,000 years ago, the first proto-states developed in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus Valley. Military forces were formed for protection, and government bureaucracies for administration. States cooperated and competed for resources, in some cases waging wars. Around 2,000 – 3,000 years ago, some states, such as Persia, China, and Rome, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Rise_of_civilization
The Bible details the Tower the Babel. This was one of the first examples of humans grouping together and working together in what could be called a civilization:
GENESIS 11
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
Liam can you explain why there are so many different languages in the world? The Bible gives an explanation for this:
GENESIS 11
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:50 pm

Liam if the Archaeopteryx is a true transitional fossil then we should
see the fossils of the dinosaur before (without a single feather), the
dinosaur with the feathers and then the bird it became with no traces
of dinosaur whatsoever.

No, we shouldn't! And what about the other countless dinosaur-to-bird fossils?

If you think birds evolved from dinosaurs can you explain how cold
blooded dinosaurs became warm blooded seeing as birds are warm blooded?

Evolution!

If anything the Chinese Archaeoraptor case shows that not all scientific evidence is 100% watertight and error free.

It wasn't scientific evidence you retard! As I already mentioned!

I'm still waiting on your evidence!!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:34 am

Liam you have yet to answer the unresolved questions. If you reject God can you still answer these questions?

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

If you can answer them, then I would like to know your answers.

----
Liam if the Archaeopteryx is a true transitional fossil then we should
see the fossils of the dinosaur before (without a single feather), the
dinosaur with the feathers and then the bird it became with no traces
of dinosaur whatsoever.


No, we shouldn't! And what about the other countless dinosaur-to-bird fossils?
Yes we should. How can you prove what dinosaur the Archaeopteryx came from and what bird it became?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2094

I quote:
Certainly many authentic fossils do exist. However, as Colin Patterson admitted in his 1999 book, Evolution: “Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else” (p. 109). Henry Gee, the chief science writer for Nature, confirmed that point in his 1999 book, In Search of Deep Time, when he admitted:
We know that it is impossible when confronted with a fossil, to be certain whether it is your ancestor, or the ancestor of anything else, even another fossil. We also know that adaptive scenarios are simply justifications for particular arrangements of fossils made after the fact, and which rely for their justification on authority rather than on testable hypotheses (p. 127).
And what was the catastrophic burial? The worldwide flood mentioned in the Bible.


More likely a landslide!
Can you prove the T-Rex bones were buried by a landslide and not a flood?
I'm still waiting on your evidence!!
Evidence for a young Earth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.
You can have a read of this article: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm

And this article as well: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5862/creation.html

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:50 pm

Yes we should. How can you prove what dinosaur the Archaeopteryx came from and what bird it became?

No! We shouldn't, that is not how evolution works.

It is irrelevant to evolution which TYPE of dinosaur it was and what TYPE of bird its became, what IS important it that it WAS a dinsosaur and evolved into A bird, a completely different species!

Can you prove the T-Rex bones were buried by a landslide and not a flood?

Can you prove it was by a flood?

Evidence for a young Earth:

Before I rip these apart, may I ask, have you actually accessed a REAL science website in order to find the a rebukes against your, sorry, answersingenesis.net 'evidence'?

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The outer edges of a galaxy spiral are known as density waves. Much like sound in the air, they travel through the galaxy's disk, causing a piling-up of stars and gas. In some galaxies, this 'piling-up' reflects the wave, creating a giant standing spiral wave. These usually have a lifetime of about 1-2 billion years. What causes the waves is unknown, however the spiral pattern is energetically favourable. In computer simulations, when working with gravity, spirals spontaneously form.

http://www.sciam.com/space/article/id/what-process-creates-and

2. Too few supernova remnants.

To begin with, I have to say you, sorry again, answersingenesis are wrong. The have been many supernova remnants found, which include, what are known as Stage 3 remnants, which are older then 20,000 years old. So AiG’s ‘evidence’ actually disproves a young earth. Supernovas are evidence for an old universe. Supernovas are what is left when a start dies, however a stars lifetime can last into billions of years. The remnants of dead stars is used for the formation of new ones, and since we know new stars are forming, we then know that there must be a first generation of stars. All supernova remnants are more than 7,000 light years away from us. So if a remnant has a lifespan of 20,000 years, and it takes at least 7,000 years to reach Earth, then the universe is, at least, 27,000 years old.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

Humphreys notes that comets lose some mass with every trip around the sun, claims that there is no source of new comets in the solar system, and then concludes that comet lifetimes (10,000 to 100,000 years) provide an upper limit to the age of the solar system.

Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

But Humphreys' comet hypotheses fell apart recently because a source for new comets, the Kuiper Belt (predicted by astronomer Gerard Kuiper in 1951), has been actually photographed and confirmed by several teams of astronomers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt#Exploration
Of course, Humphrey wrote this (the original) article in 1995, so it is over a decade out-of-date. But as you can see, Creationist retards are still using it today.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years.
The depth of sediments on the ocean bottoms is not a constant 400 meters, it varies, considerably! Much sediment never gets to the ocean floor, it often deposits on continental slopes and river deltas. Some of these slope can accumulate kilometres of sediment, while other become mountain rangers, due to continental drift. Erosion nor subduction are constant processes.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

This is much the same as the 4th ‘evidence’. Again the level of sodium is assumed constant, which it is not. It is like saying, it is snowing outside, at a rate of 1 inch per hour. The snow is 4 feet deep, therefore the Earth is 48 hours old. As I’m sure you will agree, the Earth is older than 2 days old. We then know, that our measurements are inaccurate. Snow fall is not constant. Snow melts, sometimes it doesn’t snow. Again, this shows that the Earth is NOT young.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.

No, it doesn't decay, the earth's magnetic field has weakened, strengthened, and changed polarity many times in earth's history.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/geomag/faqgeom.shtml#q8a

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

This one is too easy. If these strata were bent quickly, they more than likely would have fractured.

8. Biological material decays too fast.

Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.

Actually, the consensus is approx 150,000 years old. http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/YEC_and_dino_blood.htm

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

10. Too much helium in minerals.

We have covered this one. Remember the Zircons?
http://debate.forumotion.com/the-continued-religious-debate-f1/continue-the-debate-in-here-t1-120.htm#134

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

I believe we have covered this one too. Remember Carbon dating?
http://debate.forumotion.com/the-continued-religious-debate-f1/continue-the-debate-in-here-t1-120.htm#134

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.

Humphreys assumes that the Stone Age had a constant population of about 1 million, with 25 years average between generations. Again, an assumption is made. Humphreys notes that only a few thousand have been found, and concludes that the actual duration of the Stone Age is only a few hundred years.

The fact that some people buried bodies does not mean all did. In many cases, such as wars, plagues, natural disasters, and lone people getting lost, people get killed without even any consideration of funerals. Some land, such as swamps, and ground frozen in winter, makes burial impractical. Even today, common funerary practices include incineration, exposure to the scavengers and elements, and burial at sea.

Fossilization is not a common process. And we have examined only a tiny fraction of the land where bodies might be buried. The few thousand remains we have found are well in line with a 185,000-year human history.
In many acid soils, all organic matter can easily decay in 1,000 years. Hot, damp conditions in the tropics will also decay bodies and leech bones quickly. Erosion or reuse of the land by humans may unbury the body, at least to the point that the bones are subject to greater decay.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

Sorry, but you and your friends are wrong. As I have mentioned, in a previous post, our ancestors went through a hunter-gatherer period, without the need for agriculture. However, there is evidence for agriculture dating back as far as 11,000 years ago.

http://arnica.csustan.edu/boty3050/Notes/origins.htm

There is also DNA evidence that the dog was domesticated some 100,000 years ago. http://www.carolinadogs.org/smith7.html

14. History is too short.

This is just so highly retarded, I’m beginning to think you two are related.

Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are.

This means nothing. If I ask, ‘if the Greeks had the same brain capacity and ‘intelligence’ as us, then why didn’t THEY land on the moon?’

Can you answer that question?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:08 pm

Have a little listen to this debate....It seems to be the way we are going.

It's between Dr. Massimo Pigliucci and Robert Allen.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:17 am

Liam you have yet to answer the unresolved questions. If you reject God can you still answer these questions?

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

If you can answer them, then I would like to know your answers.

----
It is irrelevant to evolution which TYPE of dinosaur it was and what TYPE of bird its became, what IS important it that it WAS a dinsosaur and evolved into A bird, a completely different species!
How can you prove which dinosaur Archaeopteryx evolved from and which bird it became? Have scientists found remains of every dinosaur that ever lived? Do scientists know about every dinosaur that ever lived? If the answer is no, then the Archaeopteryx could be a new species of dinosaur and not a transitional animal between dinosaurs and birds. But if you can show me a dinosaur before it became a Archaeopteryx and then a bird that the Archaeopteryx became then that would give more evidence towards Archaeopteryx being a transitional animal between dinosaurs and birds.
Can you prove the T-Rex bones were buried by a landslide and not a flood?


Can you prove it was by a flood?
You haven’t proved it wasn’t. Bear in mind that floods can cause landslides. It’s quite likely that as the water was rising during the global flood that a landslide occurred quickly burying that T-Rex and then the weight of the water compressed the ground down on top of the T-Rex bones and they fossilized over time. The red blood cells still in the T-Rex bones prove that the bones can’t be as old as scientists make them out to be.
Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are.


This means nothing. If I ask, ‘if the Greeks had the same brain capacity and ‘intelligence’ as us, then why didn’t THEY land on the moon?’

Can you answer that question?
Yes I can answer this. It has to do with what modern people call research and development. One generation of people develops something and the next generation takes that already known knowledge and adds to it to advance the thing in question. Over a larger number of generations researching and developing stuff further technology improves, advances and gets better. You see the Greeks hadn’t developed a rocket and it took humans 100s of years of researching and developing until the late 1950s and 1960s when the developments had advanced to the point where humans could build rockets and send people to the moon. The Greeks where just as intelligent as humans nowadays. There is big money in research and development because it can advance technology further.
I have more computing power in my mobile phone than was in the fastest computer during the second world war. Does that mean I’m smarter than the people during the Second World War?

Please answer this honestly:

How come you where so quick in responding to the Answers in Genesis evidence for a young Earth but you wouldn’t answer the evolution questions I gave you?

Please could you answer the evolution questions:

http://atheiststooges.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/26-questions-for-evolutionists/

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. How did thought evolve?
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:15 pm

How can you prove which dinosaur Archaeopteryx evolved from and which bird it became?
I’m not a palaeontologist. But the Archaeopteryx IS a dinosaur. What kind of dinosaur? An Archaeopteryx!
Have scientists found remains of every dinosaur that ever lived? If the answer is no, then the Archaeopteryx could be a new species of dinosaur and not a transitional animal between dinosaurs and birds.
No, your wrong here. For a start, Archaeopteryx IS a new species of dinosaur. We may (quite possibly) never have every fossil of every species of dinosaur, and every human. This is because of the fossilization process.

Let me spell it out for you. The Archaeopteryx has traits that are found in both Dinosaurs and Birds. This shows the transition, from dinosaur to bird. The Archaeopteryx is the earliest known ancestor of ALL birds, along with the other ‘dino-birds’ I mentioned.
The red blood cells still in the T-Rex bones prove that the bones can’t be as old as scientists make them out to be.
Do you even read what I write? I covered this in my previous post! Here you go ‘AGAIN’!
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/YEC_and_dino_blood.htm
Yes I can answer this.

Well done, you answered your own question! Regarding ‘History is too short.’

How come you where so quick in responding to the Answers in Genesis evidence for a young Earth but you wouldn’t answer the evolution questions I gave you?

Because they are not about evolution!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 am

Liam you have yet to answer the unresolved questions. If you reject God can you still answer these questions?

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

If you can answer them, then I would like to know your answers.

----
Have scientists found remains of every dinosaur that ever lived? If the answer is no, then the Archaeopteryx could be a new species of dinosaur and not a transitional animal between dinosaurs and birds.

No, your wrong here. For a start, Archaeopteryx IS a new species of dinosaur. We may (quite possibly) never have every fossil of every species of dinosaur, and every human. This is because of the fossilization process.
Then you can’t prove with 100% certainly that Archaeopteryx became a bird.

Let me spell it out for you. The Archaeopteryx has traits that are found in both Dinosaurs and Birds. This shows the transition, from dinosaur to bird. The Archaeopteryx is the earliest known ancestor of ALL birds, along with the other ‘dino-birds’ I mentioned.
What happens if actual birds where found to have existed at the same time as Archaeopteryxs?

How come you where so quick in responding to the Answers in Genesis evidence for a young Earth but you wouldn’t answer the evolution questions I gave you?


Because they are not about evolution!
Granted not all of the questions are directly about evolution (and neither where the Answers in Genesis’s evidences for a young Earth which you did answer), but some clearly are:

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f. How did the intermediate forms live?
I would like you to answer them (even if you think they aren’t to do with evolution):

http://atheiststooges.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/26-questions-for-evolutionists/

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. How did thought evolve?
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 15 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum