It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Big O
How does creationism explain items that are carbon dated older than the bible says the earth is?

Also, what is the religious take on dinosaurs? One big hoax?

How does creationism explain things that lived and died before man showed up?

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being serious. I want to know the theory on the other side to counteract these items. You never hear the counter argument, just the "scientific one."

I'm a curious guy.


the earth is millions of years old biblically. in gen 1:1, heavens and earth were created. in gen 1:2 the earth was (BECAME) void and without form. this word was here should be denoted became. for information on the before, 2peter3, jeremiah 4 describe this.

2peter3 also describes how old the earth is since its destruction, approx 6000 years created and 14000 years old now. (creation + our calendar = approx date). consider the sun and moon were not created until the 4th day of genesis.

A dinosaur is described in job 40. its debateable but i go with the bronchosaurus / dragon instead of the elephant crocidile. (elephants dont have cedar tails, crocs dont breathe fire).




posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by jupiter869

Remember that creationism (or the new phrase: intelligent design to be politically correct and give possible credit to Aliens as well as God) is a theory, just as evolution is a theory.


Sorry to be a stickler for terminology here, but creationism cannot qualify as a theory, only a belief. The reason for this is that a theory must:

1. Be based on empirical, unbiased observation.

2. Be able to produce accurate predictions concerning future events.

Therefore, even if the creationists are entirely and completely correct in their assesment of how the world began, such assesment would not constitute a theory, only an event.


I'll go even further and say that creationism is more faith than belief. The faith in God's word causes belief. Evolution is also not a theory as it does not meet the scientific method's requirement for a theory. I would call it a hypothesis, not a theory, since it has not been proven and verified.

At the very least, though, Creationism (or Intelligent Design), has the benefit of at least explaining where everything came from; Evoltion tries to, but fails.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
hey I would again have to agree with "lightseeker"
I believe in the bible. I believe it to be the truth and scientifically accurate. the bible explains where, how, when etc... everthing was created.

the evolution theory on the other hand does try to give a scientific explanation on how everything got here, how the earth came to be and how man came to be. but then you run into the problem of running into other scientific laws that dont allow that theory to be feasible.

as mentioned in other threads, the first law of thermodynamics says that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but the big bang says that nothin exploded and made everything.

it takes faith to believe that the big bang happened just like it takes faith to believe that God or ID created everything for a purpose.

thanks



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   


2peter3, jeremiah 4 describe this.


these do not further explain the creation whatsoever.

EC



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   


it takes faith to believe that the big bang happened just like it takes faith to believe that God or ID created everything for a purpose.


No, it takes literacy and education to beleive in the big bang. Relying on a book of myths to explain the world is just plain daft. Sorry. If your parents had read you Lord of the Rings as a child would you swear blindly that there was a mythical continent called Middle Earth?

Evolution is proven, it has been established over and over again on this board that evolution has happened. What have the Creationists and ID proponents offered in return? A few loony websites, alot of nothing and generally not being able to justify there silly, childish position.

One quick question to sum it all up, how do you explain the face that man has the remenants of a tail? Or is God just messing with us poor, deluded evolutionists?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Not only do we have the remains of a tail we have alot of other left overs from millions of years of evolution ,some are quite a burden.



The idea of dinosaurs and humans co-existing in the same time peroid is flawed
as we dont find any evidence in the fossile record of dinosaurs eating animals such as cows,camels even humans.If dinosaurs co-existed at the same time as humans they would have had to feed on animals which existed at the same time time peroid.Lets take T-rex for instance we have documented cases of bite marks being found on numerious different dinosaurs such as Triceratops, but not on animals such as cows or even as far back as wooly mammoths.

We only find T-rex bite marks on animals in the end Meszoic Era,during the creataceous peroid.This goes for all dinosaurs T-rex is just an example.Even some dinosaurs never met each other, Brachiosaurus lived from 156 million to 145 million years during the Jurassic period so a t-rex could never had snacked on this guy.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   


how do you explain the face that man has the remenants of a tail?


are you refering to our tailbone? do you think it is vestigal?

EC



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Umm, well yes. I dont see the need for a bone that would only be needed were a greater weight once required. Its a vestigial remenant that we no longer need.

Like the appendix.

Loking forward to the reason why God gave it to us though, have fun an dont think to hard.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
ok uncle joe. you seem to be ignorant in the subject of anatomy.

the appendix is not vestigal. you do you need your appendix. it is part of your immune system. without it your are more likely to get more diseases. it is true you can live without your appendix, but now something else has to work harder. but that doesnt mean you dont need it. you can live without both your arms and both your legs and both your eyes all at the same time. it doesnt mean you dont need them.

the appendix is not vestigal, I can see you learned about evolution in school and one of many lies that support it.

the tailbone is not vestigal. there happen to be 9 little muscles that attatch to that bone, without which you would not be able to perform some valuable functions. I wont tell you what they are, but believe me, you need those muscles.
now if you think that you dont need your tailbone, I will pay to have yours removed after insisting you shouldnt do it. you have my word on that.

EC

[edit on 11-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]

[edit on 11-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Umm, well yes. I dont see the need for a bone that would only be needed were a greater weight once required. Its a vestigial remenant that we no longer need.

Like the appendix.

Loking forward to the reason why God gave it to us though, have fun an dont think to hard.


Your argument that the Appendix, "tailbone", etc.. are useless leftovers of evolution is incorrect, or at best unproven imho.

Appendix

-the appendix is a type of lymphatic tissue that helps to prevent disease germs from entering the system and operates principally in the first few months or years of human life


The Coccyx (tailbone)
- function as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments, including the gluteus maximus, which is the big muscle that runs down the back of the thigh and allows us to walk upright not to necessarily 'carry' a tail.


Source

The appendix actually functions within the immune system; it is part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue system. The appendix is a highly specialized organ, a complex well-developed structure with a rich blood supply. The submucosa (tissue layer) is thickened and almost entirely occupied by lymphatic nodules and lymphocytes (Scadding 175; Ham and Wieland 41; Glover 34f.; Vines 39).



Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.Evolutionary zoologist S. R. Scadding (University of Guelph)
(emphasis mine)



As our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial structures has decreased. Wiedersheim could list about one hundred in humans; recent authors usually list four or five. Even the current short list of vestigial structures in humans is questionable
(emphasis mine)

Acceptable, or are the anti-creationists gonna continue to use this argument...just curious Don't think to hard.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   


t-rex


Trex has been proven to be a plant eating dinosaur, due to the enormous amounts of chlorophyll found imbedded in the teeth. this molecule is only found in plants.

EC



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



t-rex


Trex has been proven to be a plant eating dinosaur, due to the enormous amounts of chlorophyll found imbedded in the teeth. this molecule is only found in plants.

EC

Funny how t-rex only has teeth designed to tear meat and not to grind plants. Could you at least make an attempt to PROVE this statement?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher


t-rex


Trex has been proven to be a plant eating dinosaur, due to the enormous amounts of chlorophyll found imbedded in the teeth. this molecule is only found in plants.

EC

Funny how t-rex only has teeth designed to tear meat and not to grind plants. Could you at least make an attempt to PROVE this statement?



Not exactly sure where EC is going with this, but there is debate recently over whether or not T-rex was a scavenger or predator. Still a meat-eater tho but maybe not the voracious hunter we've always thought he was. But i do believe they were also plant eaters, when it was necessary.

here's a link if your interested: www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Paleontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies (Bozeman, MT) has proposed that T.rex could not have been a predator. His arguments against predation include its small eyes (needed to see prey), small arms (needed to hold prey), huge legs (meaning slow speed) and that there is no evidence for predation — bones have been found with tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them or scratched by them, but so far no study has shown that tyrannosaurs killed other dinosaurs for food (a bone showing tyrannosaur tooth marks that had healed would be strong evidence for predation).



[edit on 11-9-2005 by Rren]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
T-rex a vicious herbivore?

I thought that I had heard all the ridiculous things creationists could offer, but that one takes the cake.

Whether or not the appendix is needed is irrelevant.

Evolution has been proven and is evident in the world around us.

Creationsism is not scientific and expains nothing, unless "god did it" is good enough for you.

Although I must admit, "god did it " supports all these misunderstandings people have about evolution too.


Question: Why are there gaps in a fossil record that only records a very small percentage of life on this planet, yet fits in with evolutionary hypothesis. Why are there gaps even when they all fit together and are never found out of place?


Answer: God did it.



Edit: Almost forgot the misunderstanding of entropy there. It is true that the second law of thermodynamics applies. . . to closed systems.

Well I guess I can't expect research from someone who thinks that the T-rex was a herbivore.


[edit on 11-9-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   


1. Be based on empirical, unbiased observation.

2. Be able to produce accurate predictions concerning future events.


evolution is never observed. however, MICRO evolution has been observed. but no other type of evolution has ever been observed.

no accurate prediction has ever been made from the evolution theory.
carbon dating does not work on things of known age. it is assumed to work on things of unknown age. thats not even logical.

EC



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 05:00 AM
link   
So at what point does micro evolution become macro evolution? How many changes before an animal becomes a different type of animal? In admitting to micro evolution you have to admit in macro evolution because culmetive mutations are what changes one animal to another.Macros evolution shouldnt even be called marco evolution because its not evolution at the macro leve,l its many many tiny mutations at the micro level which lead to another genus.

T-rex being a herbivour,is bunk.Sure theres a debate going to determine T-rex was a predator but the alternative is a scavenger not a herbivour.The t-rex has eyes set in the front of the head only predators have this configuration eg Eagle,Wolf,Lion.It also has some rather large teeth and powerful jaw muscles use for crunching bone, these two features are usless for eating plants.




However, in a bit of luck for us scientists, we actually have some fossil evidence that tells us the types of animals that T. rex was eating. Tooth marks found in Triceratops and Edmontosaurus bones are perfect matches with T. rex teeth. Thus, we have good evidence that these two dinosaurs were part of the T. rex diet, but T. rex probably would've eaten any type of meat that it could find: dinosaurs, mammals, lizards, you name it!


www.pbs.org...

And Rren




bones have been found with tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them or scratched by them, but so far no study has shown that tyrannosaurs killed other dinosaurs for food (a bone showing tyrannosaur tooth marks that had healed would be strong evidence for predation).


Ask your self this, why would t-rex Tooth marks be found on herbivours , which would have no reason to attack t-rex? And why would the t-rex attack them if he was a herbivour.I think the answer is simple really he was a predator and he was hungry.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Not exactly sure where EC is going with this,

I'm sure.. he's probably going to use this argument later to say trex were on the ark..


but there is debate recently over whether or not T-rex was a scavenger or predator. Still a meat-eater tho but maybe not the voracious hunter we've always thought he was. But i do believe they were also plant eaters, when it was necessary.

They do not have teeth for grinding.. nor do they have the ability to enclose their mouths to produce the saliva required to swallow the grinded vegetation. You'll notice that with many herbivours


Paleontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies (Bozeman, MT) has proposed that T.rex could not have been a predator.

:shk: It's a shame he doesn't know much about predators.

His arguments against predation include its small eyes (needed to see prey),

Crocs and sharks have small eyes too.

small arms (needed to hold prey),

I doubt the t-rex would be overly worried about keeping his prey off an unsanitory ground. This guy seems a little dense. It's huge and powerful jaws would be sufficient enough to keep it pinned.. large arms would get in the way of catching it in the first place. Remembering also that is may have been a pack animal so may have co-ordinated hunts.

huge legs (meaning slow speed)

No. Huge legs would indicate powerful muscles that would be good for charging and pinning.. hence the small arms for efficiency. Rhinos couldn't exactly outrun a cheetah for example.. but I wouldn't want to be in it's path when it starts.

and that there is no evidence for predation — bones have been found with tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them or scratched by them, but so far no study has shown that tyrannosaurs killed other dinosaurs for food (a bone showing tyrannosaur tooth marks that had healed would be strong evidence for predation).

I'm don't see any way this argument could prove they weren't predetors..



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
no accurate prediction has ever been made from the evolution theory.
carbon dating does not work on things of known age. it is assumed to work on things of unknown age. thats not even logical.

EC



First off you are wrong about the herbivore T-rex, you might as well admit it.

Second, there are many accurate predictions made from evolutionary theory.

Evolution predicts that certain plant and animal types will be found in certain areas of the geological record. We have yet we have never found a fossil that is out of place. I once saw a quote from a biologist stating that all someone would need to prove evolution wrong, would be to find rabbit fossils in the cambrian explosion.

It hasn't happened.

Radiometric dating.

Carbon dating is accurate when used properly, and it has limitations. When using carbon dating, the limitations of the method are taken into account.

It is possible to attain false readings when it not used properly.

However carbon dating is not the only form of dating we have.

www.asa3.org...

The above is a good link explaining how half-lives work and why it is so accurate.

The reason we know how old the earth is has to do with the radioactive half-lives of certain elements. We know that as time goes on, the radioactive materials decay into what we call daughter elements. By measuring the ratio of parent/daughter elements with known half-lives we can be extremely accurate with our statements of age.

Carbon dating is not used to measure the age of the earth as it is only accurate for so far back.

That's what radiometric dating is for.


Edit: In all fairness Rren never said that T-rex was a herbivore, but that it might swallow plant material if it had too. I see no problem with a starving T-rex swallowing saplings whole if it had too, after all stranger things are found in great white shark's bellies. It is entirely possible that the T-rex could have been a scavenger. It remains debatable on whether he was a predator, a scavenger or a mix of both. There is no need to mock him for the scavenger theory as it is viable. Saying that YOU personally have decided that T-rex must be a predator is about as reasonable as saying "god did it."




[edit on 12-9-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Edit: In all fairness Rren never said that T-rex was a herbivore, but that it might swallow plant material if it had too.

I had noticed that myself thankyou. Yes indeed he may have swallowed plantfood.. inside something else.


There is no need to mock him for the scavenger theory as it is viable. Saying that YOU personally have decided that T-rex must be a predator is about as reasonable as saying "god did it."

I wasn't actually mocking him, but I was definently mocking the author of the article as it makes no sense.. [little arms?] interestingly enough the author wasn't even a creationalist [as far as I could see] so I am comfounded as to what motivates him to make such a conclusion. I think what I said was quite reasonable, and I gave a scientifically sound rebuttle. My opinion is based on facts about predators not wishful thinking so there's no need to be patronising and play mod..

..however if you really want I can go through all your posts and see how to post properly so I can learn how not to mock others.. a talent you surely must have mastered.



I am somewhat annoyed though that EC has failed to back up his claims.. yet again. EC?

[edit on 12-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

posted by Merkeva
Ask your self this, why would t-rex Tooth marks be found on herbivours , which would have no reason to attack t-rex? And why would the t-rex attack them if he was a herbivour.I think the answer is simple really he was a predator and he was hungry.


I don't, repeat, I DO NOT think that T-rex was a herbivore, the link i provided (UC Berkely is not a Creationist site last i checked) pertained to the debate over whether t-rex was a scavenger or predator. I did say "still a meat-eater tho" and i don't even agree that t-rex was a scavenger. I simply provided the think because i wasn't sure if that's what EC was alluding too, couldn't believe he meant that T-rex was a herbivore so i assumed he meant scavenger... clear?


posted by riley
I'm sure.. he's probably going to use this argument later to say trex were on the ark..


If he did indeed mean herbivore, then i would guess he's going with no death before the fall, hence no carnivores. But i guess it's best to let him speak for himself...we could both be off. :0)

...but if i'm correct i'll do a pre-emptive rebuttal via an old-Earth creationist site which i trust and have for many years now(the t.v show ain't bad either).

Reasons.org
Does animal death before Adam put the "curse before the Fall?" No. Young-earth creationists claim all death is the result of Adam and Eve's sin (known as the Fall). However, the Bible states death came to "all men" as a result of sin (Romans 5:12), not that all death is the result of sin. Only man sins and only man suffers spiritual death because of sin. It is also important to remember that eternal life was only available to Adam and Eve through the supernatural "tree of life." Since animals did not have access to the supernatural "tree," they had no promise of eternal life and no possible way to avoid death.6


See EC no real reason to make T-rex a vegetarian or any other vicious animal from pre-historic times. GOD gave you common sense...IOW Faith doesn't have to be blind imho.



They do not have teeth for grinding.. nor do they have the ability to enclose their mouths to produce the saliva required to swallow the grinded vegetation. You'll notice that with many herbivours


I'm not disagreeing with you here, honest. My comment about eating vegetation when necessary (omnivorous?) was based on a show that i believe was on Discovery Science channel. They said, if i remember correctly, that when no prey was to be had that T-rex could eat vegetation as a last resort, are you saying it's impossible (ie cant chew or digest)? Again i DO believe that they were meat-eaters and i'm fairly convinced they were primarily predatory hunters who probably only scavenged when they had to for survival.

I agree, that just looking at them they seem to be predators. And at their size i wouldn't think it's plausible that they could sustain themselves, where did their food supply come from?

And btw EC even if you could throw out radiometric dating (btw you have over 40 different methods which are all in agreement to "debunk") you still have to deal with geology, cosmology and a couple hundred specific dating methods which, even though they don't completely agree with one another, come no where even close to 6k-10k years for the age of the Earth. GOD is not a liar and He is not trying to trick you imho, you have too much faith in the scribes who translated the KJV imo. There is a logical Biblically based argument to an old Earth and a local flood.

IOW i don't believe that the Bible is a collection of myths, i do have faith that it's the word of GOD. I just don't know how much faith i have in the men(whom have free will!) who translated it. Infact there are MANY debates over the translations today. For me the original text is the inspired word of GOD, however what we have today is our "best" version of that Word.


We can provide evidence all day for a cataclysmic flood throughout Mesopotamia, and anyone, from so long ago, could be forgiven for thinking that the entire Earth was covered. From their perspective it did cover the mountains, and imo civilization was wiped out...except for Noah and his family(whether or not his name was actually Noah i do not know). I can't see the Noah story as a metaphor too many specific details imo. Size of boat, how many of what type of animal should be taken, where he started where he landed etc.. Best i can tell it's a story of an event that did occur.

And on a side not but still related imo. Take a look at this link to a recent discovery which concludes that the brain is still evolving www.sciencedaily.com...
I'd like you to pay special attention to this part in particular:

For ASPM, the new variant class arose about 5,800 years ago and now shows up in approximately 30 percent of today's humans. These time windows are extraordinarily short in evolutionary terms, indicating that the new variants were subject to very intense selection pressure that drove up their frequencies in a very brief period of time--both well after the emergence of modern humans about 200,000 years ago.


Pay attention to; ASPM arose about 5,800 years ago, that date sound familiar?

The ASPM variant coincides with the oldest-known civilization, Mesopotamia, which dates back to 7000 BC. "Microcephalin," the authors wrote in one of the papers, "has continued its trend of adaptive evolution beyond the emergence of anatomically modern humans


Hmmm, man. as we are today("civilized") possibly emerged @5,800 years ago...interesting yes? Just thought i'd throw that up and see what sticks.


(edit)clarification: The genealogy of Genesis shows Adam created about 4000 or 4001 B.C. Or approx. 6,000 years ago, so approx. 5,800(ASPM variant) is within the margain of error and fits nicely into a creation model imo.




[edit on 12-9-2005 by Rren]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join