Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan
You obviously haven't read much of the thread since I already addressed the issue of uncertainties in science and Erica already addressed the issue about thermodynamics.
The observation that species evolve is the fact. The explanation of the overall mechanic that drives it (natural selection) is the theory. I guess it's easy to confuse the two, but the terms seem appropriate enough to me.
But saying it's a theory is not admitting it's a guess anymore than the term "theory of gravity" admits the existence of gravity is a guess. Guesses are labeled as hypotheses, not theories.
It's quite a leap to go from "there is uncertainty in both fields" to "the amount of uncertainty is the same in each" and "both use methods of the same validity." That last point is especially key. The insistence of the validity of evolution would indeed be arrogant and presumptuous if it was just dreamed up out of nowhere, but it came from years of observation and research. On the other hand...
|
Wait wait wait.
The ONLY evolution which has been even remotely scientifically proven is Micro-Evolution. Micro-Evolution is the evolving of a species -- or in other words this KIND stays this KIND but changes ie adaptation.
I need you to define me evolution.............. because from what I have read.
1. Cosmic evolution -- (pertains to time/space/matter)
2. Chemical evolution -- (pertains to chemicals & elements)
3. Stellar evolution -- (pertains to stars, planets, and "outer space")
4. Organic evolution -- (pertains to the origin of life -- "Where does life come from?")
5. Macro-evolution -- (pertains to kinds of animals)
6. Micro-evolution -- (adaptation within a particular "kind" of animal)
* All of these have to be true if there is not a God....... please start with the proof science has for each of them. Cosmic -- no proof what so ever. Chemical, can't get past iron, but please show me the proof. Steller, please have science show me one star being formed, they can't. Organic, show me how time, space, and matter didn't happen at the same time.
------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
So, I ask you this. Which of the following do you believe:
1) There once was a snake that could talk
2) A human being was cloned from the rib of the only human on Earth and the first man and the clone were able to populate the whole planet without the genetic problems of inbreeding?
3) Many people lived for 1,000 years.
4) There was a boat that housed 17.4 million creatures
5) Humans and dinosaurs shared the Earth
6) There was a flood on Earth that was made up of 2-4 times the amount of water that ever existed on this planet
7) There was a flood that left no fossil or sedimentary record
8) Humans are created perfect in God's eyes
9) The complexity of the Grand Canyon was created by flood waters, even though receding water with that power would simply have created a single, washed out chasm and not the intricate topography of the actual wonder.
10) a man lived inside a whale and came out OK.
11) The chemistry of H20 spontaneously changed to contain carbohydrates and alcohols
So either you believe that basic laws of science like gravity always take effect or you believe that there are exceptions-- that you could fall up, that a snake (without the physical manifestations or intellect to talk) can spontaneously talk. Chemistry can spontaneously be changed. Biological limitations on lifespan can be changed so modern humans average 80-some but biblical characters lived 910 on average and many children die needlessly in the first 20 years. You don't live as if all the laws of nature could be changed at any time, I assume. You depend on gravity and light and chemistry. No one tests gravity before walking, sips their water to make sure it hasn't turned into cyanide. No one lives with the idea that they may be 910-years-old. Sane people don't talk with snakes with the idea that the physiology of the snake may suddenly be altered to allow it the faculties of language and it's anatomy changed to allow it to make human phonemes.
|
I'll address the numbered ones in a sec, but let's get to gravity.
Gravity does exist. Never thought it didn't, but do you have gravity in outer space? Is gravity the same at sea level as it is in the top of Mount Everest? Just curious as to why you think their is a law of gravity -- when gravity changes and is different by scientific testing.
Please send me some links to Macro evolution -- you claim lots, but I can't find any actual proof of Macro Evolution anywhere. Bacteria is still bacteria.
Age -- yes there are several creationist who think they have this problem answered, I just didn't bring them up because I can't prove they are correct.
Now to the numbers.
1) Snake -- never said snake -- says serpent, and was changed to crawl on belly -- NO way to prove yes or no.
2) Human clone from rib -- Yes I believe, but cant prove it.
3) No one has ever been documented to live 1000 years - Methuselah was the oldest at 969. Yes there are some very good theories out there as to why he could have been this old. Research some of the creationism and maybe you can find some of these answers as well.
4) How do you get 17.4 million creatures? There might be that many different types today, but not that many KINDS of animals. Meaning that a dog, wolf, coyote, fox etc probably had a common ancestor, but they are all canines and if you only took two of each KIND then it limits the numbers quickly. Then make sure that they were the younger not full grown stuff, and yes -- it gets much easier for me to understand how it might have been done.
5)yes 6) yes 7) but yet there is evidence of a global flood all over the place and in the lore of nearly all of the oldest writings we have from American Indians, Mayan, Summaritian, etc as well as the bible.
8) - 12) yes
Yes, I do believe it miracles. Yes I do believe in God. Yes I do believe that the Grand Canyon was made during the flood, and I think it is easily explained.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Next
Quote:
|
But your bias is even worse than that. You have already made up your mind that not only is the earth young, but that this means the "real" scientific evidence that everyone wants to cover up points to this fact. So in your biased state, when you see the average life of a carbon atom to be 8000 years, you immediately jump to the conclusion that all carbon decays at approximately that time frame. By doing this, you not only betray your personal agenda to try to discredit evolutionary science, but you also demonstrate how your personal agenda drives you to misinterpret a simple exponential curve, something that's taught in Algebra II.
|
So you say that you immediately jump to the conclusion that all carbon decays at approximately that time frame.
If it doesn't decay at the same time frame -- then how so you use it in a time calculation?
If science has proven that it doesn't, then why use it and call it science?
You see -- I see this quite often in the scientific community. Circular logic.
So you are back into the exact same place you just put me in. Personal agenda driving a misinterpretation.
---------------------------------------
Basically here is what I have been taught about evolution.
The Big Bang theory teaches that all of the universe was squashed into a dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence (an "infintessimal region"), which began to spin, faster and faster, until it eventually exploded. The universe will either continually expand untill we all die a "heat death", or contract again, only to repeat the process in another "Big Bang", sometime in the future.
Basically, "nothing" exploded and made everything. The universe came from nothing. We all came from a dot, and the dot came from nothing.
Where did the dirt [matter] in the dot come from? Who made it?
Where did the [physical] laws come from?
It takes energy to make matter. Where did the energy come from?
The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, specialized for thermodynamical systems. It is usually formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. The law of conservation of energy can be stated: The energy of an isolated system is constant.
*So in lay mans terms energy can only be changed not created or destroyed.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics -- Everything tends toward disorder.
Things become more chaotic with the passage of time. Things crumble and wither.
This second law is easily seen all over the place. Things with age, crumble and corrode.
** So we have two scientific laws of thermodynamics that science can't explain the creation of. Yet, they claim that their own laws aren't correct because things get better with time, and it was all started by the creation of energy from nothing which is against its own law.
***** Where am I missing it here. Either these laws are correct and science can use them, or science (evolution) is correct and they are absolutely not laws? WE can test them and they work, but they can't be real if evolution is correct.....scientifically. Funny how that works.
And coriolis effect:
In general, observed horizontally, looking along the direction of the movement causing the acceleration, the acceleration always is turned 90° to the right and of the same size regardless of the horizontal orientation.
It is never 180 degrees - only 90 so no that doesn't work. Science taught me about Law of Conservation of Angular Motion. So I am back to how does evolution explain it -- or are the scientific laws just wrong? I think the scientific laws are correct here and evolution is just wrong, but that is me personally.
If the Big Bang theory is correct, then everything that came out of the original "dot" should be spinning in the same direction in which the dot was spinning.
If the Big Bang theory is correct, then two or three of the planets, eight of ninety-one known moons, and even whole galaxies are spinning backwards.
---------------------------
Now some questions for you:
1)The moon is moving farther away from earth -- by a little bit each year. The fact that is moving farther away implies that it used to be closer. Reckoned by the age of the earth in the theory of evolution, 1.2 billion years ago, the moon would have been circling pretty close to the earth. Inverse Square Law -- The closer that two objects are to one another, the stronger the attraction. Consider the effects on life on earth of such a dramatic repositioning of the moon. Tides?
2)The rotation of the earth is slowing down. We "lose" a second about every year-and-a-half, and must amend our clocks.
If the earth is slowing down, then it must have been going faster in the past.
Today, at the equater, the earth spins at 1,038 miles per hour.
However, billions of years ago, how fast would the earth have been moving?Any math people here? Day would have been how long?
3) MAGNETISM OF EARTH EVIDENCE FOR YOUNG EARTH
Magnets lose their strength over time. The earth has lost 6% of its magnetism in the past 150 years. Heat is necessary for magnetism. If the earth is as old as evolutionists claim, then, based on it's magnetism, it would have been too hot for life to exist.
______________
CARBON DATING REFUTED
Mammoths have been found that date to different millennium on different parts of their bodies.
GEOLOGICAL COLUMN REFUTED
Petrified trees have been found standing upright, spanning several different "strata" of rock, which, according to theories taught in school, represent different geological "ages."
ICE LAYERS REFUTED AS EVIDENCE FOR OLD EARTH
Core samples, that were taken from deep holes drilled in ice, are marked with rings, which supposedly delineate the annual changing of the seasons. Samples taken from a depth of 10,000 feet have been marked with as many as 135,000 rings, that are said to indicate as many years. That the ice rings represent the yearly season change is an assumption.
A U.S. WWII fighter plane -- a P-38 Lightening -- that was lost over Greenland in 1942 was discovered in 1992 -- under 268 feet of ice. The ice contained hundreds of these "annual" ice rings -- not fifty, as it should have been, had this theory proved to be correct.
Also, in Alaska, 15 distinct layers of snow have been observed to fall over a period of a mere eight hours.
PETRIFICATION POSSIBLE IN SHORT TIME
Petrification does not take millions of years, as is taught by evolution.
At Spirit Lake, trees from the Mt. St. Helens eruption have began to petrify in less than twenty years.
A cowboys foot and part of his leg were found petrified, still in the boot, dating to the mid-19th century.
SUBTERRAREAN STRUCTURES POSSIBLE IN SHORT TIME
Stalactites, columns, and rock flows, as well as other geological cave formations are merely mineral deposits, and don't take millions of years to form.
Some are present in the Lincoln monument.
Flow stones no more than forty years old are know to exist.
The "Tepee Fountain" in Wyoming was created from a mineral spring in less than a century.
Numerous other examples exist.
Mineral deposits do not take millions of years to form.
SALT CONTENT IN OCEAN EVIDENCE FOR FLOOD
The oceans are only 3.6% salt.
Salt mixes with rainwater and travels to the ocean.
Why aren't the oceans saltier?
The oceans may have been mostly freshwater during the Flood. Animals would have adapted to the saline content as the waters got saltier.
PROCESS OF DESERTIFICATION EVIDENCE OF FLOOD
Through a process called "desertification," the Sahara desert is constantly growing, due to a prevailing wind pattern.
Scientists estimate that it is about 4,000 years old.
It couldn't have started growing until after the Flood.
Why are there no bigger deserts on the earth, if the earth is billions of years old and the Flood is a myth?
EXISTENCE OF OIL EVIDENCE OF FLOOD
Oil beneath the surface of the earth builds to a pressure of 20,000 PSI.
If it was created over millions of years by decomposing dinosaurs, as evolution teaches, why has it not all come up by now, as the pressure has built?
AGE OF GREAT BARRIER REEF EVIDENCE FOR FLOOD
An environmental group in Australia watched the Great Barrier Reef "grow" for 20 years, and determined that it was about 4,200 years old.
Why isn't there a coral reef that is older?
AGE OF WORLD'S OLDEST TREE EVIDENCE FOR FLOOD
"Tree ring dating" is not an exact science.
The oldest tree in the world is a bristlecone pine, which is around 4,300 years old.
This supports the Biblical dating of Noah's Flood, to around 4,400 years ago.
Why is there not an older tree?
EROSION OF NIAGARA FALLS EVIDENCE OF FLOOD
Niagara Falls is eroding backward at the rate of 4.7 feet per year. It is presently eroded back about 7.5 miles. Charles Lyle, author of "Principles of Geology," a book which was instrumental in convincing Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution, said that the erosion of Niagara Falls had taken 10,000 years to get to the point where it was in his day, then later adjusted his estimate to 35,000 years. If the earth is millions of years old, and either of Charles Lyle's estimates are correct, then why wasn't the falls backed all the way up to Lake Erie long ago? Half of the "erosion" of Niagara Falls probably occurred in about twenty minutes during the Flood.
FORMATION OF THE GULF OF MEXICO EVIDENCE OF FLOOD
Evolutionists claim that it took 30,000 years to deposit the mud at the mouth of the Mississippi River. If the earth is millions of years old, as they contend, why is the Gulf of Mexico not full by now? Petrified trees have been found while drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
EROSION EVIDENCE OF YOUNG EARTH
At the current rate of erosion, all of the continents will be gone in fourteen million years.
There are "erosion" marks all over the world that serve as markings -- evidence -- for the Flood. One such example is "ripple marks" a mile and a wide in southern Iraq.
EROSION EVIDENCE OF FLOOD
Erosion moves mass downwards. Why are fossils found at high elevations?
AGE OF RECORDED HISTORY EVIDENCE OF FLOOD & YOUNG EARTH
The Chinese calendar dates back about 4,700 years, and the Hebrew calender goes back 5,673. Why does no written history exist beyond that? (Note: This exempts claims made in Egyptian sources, which cannot be trusted)
-----------------------------------------------
There is just so much more evidence of a young earth OR scientific laws aren't really laws. If scientific laws aren't really laws then science can prove nothing as they use the laws for all the testing.
---------------------------------------------
I can't prove my belief of how things started.
Science can't prove their belief of how things started.
I get told you can't teach what I believe in school -
Science gets paid to keep teaching what they believe.
Science can prove wrong its own belief by using the scientific laws it made.
NO one can prove wrong what I believe because yes there is a form of Magic involved that can go against the laws scientist use. With that said, there is also no way to prove it right because there is a form of Magic that contradicts scientific testing.
---------------------------------------
Now you said I was digging deeper by pointing out that we needed a God, due to logic that you didn't agree to.
I don't follow the Lord due to this...it just seems to help people to have a logical reason when they don't know the Lord.
I follow him because of what he has done in my life. Since my experiences would make me seem insane to some people, I tend to leave my personal testimony out, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
----------------------------------------
And by the way -- thank you -- I love the debate.
2 on 1 or 2000 on 1 doesn't matter to me. This is the internet, and I don't feel intimidated by anyone on it.
As I said, I did LOTS of study before making my decisions and I have made it. I do still try to find out new stuff though.
Maybe I can't convince you -- Maybe you can't convince me. All we can do it put it out there and research all we can, and make our own decisions.