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.

 

Young Earth Creationist Has Bone to Pick With Evolutionists

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
these forums really give me a good laugh....

I have been searching for a while and have found many 'facts' that indicates to me that the earth is far beyond what the Old Testement states.

What do you guys think?

-during each springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu in Japan. they die and sink to the bottom of the lake. they create a thin white layer. During the rest of the year dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. the result are alternating dark and light annual layers -- much like the annual growth rings on a tree. scientists have counted about 45,000 layers, they have been accumulating since about 43,000 BCE. this is far beyond the estimates of 6 to 10 thousand years claim by creationists.

-ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice.

-the galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. this means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. this would indicate that our galaxy is much older than what creationist claim.

-Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. after an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. scientists have found that, every nuclide with a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth. nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels. the only logical explanation for these observations is that the world formed billions of years ago. There are enough long-lived nuclides still around to be still detectable. The short-lived nuclides have long since decayed and disappeared. The only exceptions to the latter are short lived nuclides which are being continuously generated by the decay of long-lived nuclides.

-Because of tides, the rotation of the earth is gradually slowing, by about 1 second every 50,000 years. about 380 million years ago, each day would have been very close to 22 hours long... There would have been about 398 days in the year. studies of rings on rugose coral fosils that were independntly estimated to be 370milion years old revealed that when they were alive, there were about 400 days in the year. this relationship has been confirmed with other coral fossils. This is good proof that the world has exsisted atleast 1third or a billion years.

-the thickness of the coral reef at Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean has been measured at up to 1,380 meters. even the most optimistic coral growth rates would require that the atoll be over 130,000 years of age.

-it takes thousands of years of below freezing temps to build a 100 ft layer of permofrost. But large area in the north are permanently frozen to depths of almost one mile, this took many thousands of years to accomplish.

-radiocarbn dating of wood usin acelerator mass spectrometry, is acurate as far back as 50,000 years. the method has many wooden and textile objects to be found tens of thousands of years old.

-reversals of the earth's magnetic pole are recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom for the past 80 million years.

-The rate at which the continents are spreading apart from each other indicates that the Atlantic Ocean is about 200 million years old.

- Measurements by sensors attached to satellites shows that space dust accumulates on the moon at the rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year. This rate would require 4.5 billion years to reach a depth of 1.5 inches, which is aprox the depth experienced by the astronauts who walked on the moon.(thats if they did, lets leave that to the other threads)

-Evolutionary principls applied to geology indicate that about 100 million years ago, the one land mass= Pangea was beginning to split apart so that land that would become South America and Africa drifted apart, at first the drift caused some shallow seas and a few land bridges. Later the Atlantic Ocean opened up and became gradually wider until it became the ocean that we see today. this theory would have a logical consequence in the evolution of dinosaurs. before this split in land mass took place, dinosaurs would have evolved into a variety of species which were found throughout Pangea. since 100 million years ago, when the land bridges disappeared and the seas became too deep to cross, the dinosaurs would have evolved differently in Africa and South America, due to their isolation from each other. This is precisely what has been observed in the fossil record.

can someone please tell me what a logical conclusion to what all these points would equal to?

im real sorry to all you 'young earth creationists'




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   
without going over everyone of your posts (as I have to study for an exam) let me just address the greenland example.

The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice.

If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated.

However, life is never as simple as implied above. In making our calculations, we did not take into account the compaction of the snow into ice as it is weighted down by the snow above. Neither did we consider the thinning of ice layers as the tremendous weight above forces the ice at lower levels to squeeze out horizontally. More importantly, we did not consider the average precipitation rate and actual depths of ice for different locations on the Greenland ice sheet.

When these factors are taken into account, the average annual thickness of ice at Camp Century located near the northern tip of Greenland is believed to vary from about fourteen inches near the surface to less than two inches near the bottom (Hammer, et al., 1978). If, for simplicity, we assume the average annual thickness to be the mean between the annual thickness at the top and at the bottom (about eight inches), this still gives an age of less than 6000 years for the 4000-foot-thick ice sheet to form under uniformitarian conditions



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
If I may throw my hat into the ring...

The main point of science (as far as I've learned) is to find understanding of natural phenomena in a predictable manner. To find patterns that can be reproduced or, when reproduction is difficult, at least re-observed with knowing what the results are going to be. And if something comes along to change that pattern, then that is taken into account and the theory is reworked.

There may very well come a point in time where there is somehow undeniable proof that our planet--or at least life on this planet--is younger than what is currently theorized. As others have previously posted on this thread, that does not not undermine evolution. Maybe there's something screwy with C-14 dating; maybe the climate's changed and things that we observe happening at a certain now didn't always fluctuate the same way. I personally don't think so, but if someone can show me that that's the way it is, then fine.

The main thing I hate about seeing a thread like this--and one of the main things I hate about religion in general--is that someone will take something and shove it in your face saying "This is proof there's a God. This is proof that the Bible is true and the billions of people who have actively studied this are wrong." I completely agree with that list of 10 (or eleven?) things that prove your a fundamentalist. Granted, it was probably out of line, but I think it hit everything almost right on the money. Religion can be a good thing sometimes, but for the most part all it seems to do is close peoples minds to the rest of the world. Times change. Science changes with it as new data is presented. Religion doesn't.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   
shmick25--
That is a good example, but really all that states is that the Greenland ice sheet has been growing for less than 6000 years. That doesn't mean that the sheet has been there since the dawn of time. What about glaciers in Antartica for example?

www.antarctica.ac.uk...



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Hi, I will just quote the site I was reading


There are several historical markers in Antarctica which can be used to cross check these calculations for the past few thousand years. But historical volcanic events are not known beyond a few thousand years in the past which provide any certainty to the calculation of age. This method would be reasonably reliable if precipitation rates had been similar in the past. However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood.

Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. Further research on ice-core data should be a high priority for creationist researchers.

www.icr.org...



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   
www.talkorigins.org...

may i ask, if the 'young earth' theory is correct, how do we explain light rays reaching earth from stars that are more than 6,000 light years away

[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
may i ask, if the 'young earth' theory is correct, how do we explain light rays reaching earth from stars that are more than 6,000 light years away


And that's really it isn't it? For me anyway. Note this is NOT an evolution versus creation thread. It's young earth versus ancient earth unless I missed something.

So when it comes to 100,000 year old coral reefs we can see being made and measure, and light from stars we know have been dead for millions of years... what gives in young earth theory?

From what I've read they have one fallback position... "God decieves."


That's the same as the old "He scattered dino bones around to confuse us" argument.

Once "they" go there, there's really nothing left to talk about (as if there ever were).



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
rom what I've read they have one fallback position... "God decieves."


That's the same as the old "He scattered dino bones around to confuse us" argument.



The one I like the most is from a very good friend that I had when I was station in California with my husband.

She was a very devote Christian, and she was also an educated person and teacher.

One day we started taking about creation, and I knew she was Christian, but when I brought up the dinosaurs been in earth long before the man.

She straight forward told me that the dinosaurs were a lie, that they were made to confused people and to discredit the bible.

From that day on I never borough up the subject again, that is how much I valued her friendship.

I have not seen her since I left California, I wonder if she ever change her views or not.

Pity.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
www.talkorigins.org...

may i ask, if the 'young earth' theory is correct, how do we explain light rays reaching earth from stars that are more than 6,000 light years away

[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]


And, what about it? Who said we are in a young galaxy?

If you believe in the bible, I do not see anywhere in Genesis where it said that God created the earth on the first day.

"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

From the sounds of this, earth existed yet was simply a water planet, so it could have existed for millions of years in this form, I guess that is an assumption you have to make. So I agree with this statement that stars from 6000 light years away could shine on earth. It doesnt discredit the account of creation though.

And another point. Even if the earth WAS created on day one, it still doesnt change anything. The galaxy was still there, with stars. Mute point.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Hmmm, religon, besides Wicca and Budda, they just seem ways to control the masses. Islam? Look at the Middle East. Judaism? Look at the Roman Empire before christianity took over and then killed it.(How sad is that? Roman Empire going strong, christians take over, it dead 3 days later....((not literally 3 days, but compared to the time it existed before christianity it was 3 days)) Christianity? look at the church, the south/slave states/CSA/red states, look at Africa, religon is controlling all those areas, and in Africa, the church is committing genocide by denying everything that would save the Africans.

As I have discussed with Croat, yes the church isn't doing what they did in the crusades/trials/inquisitions, they aren't forcefully killing people. But as I explained, say you are depressed, you are going to kill yourself. Now a psychiatrist comes over, says he will help you, you put the knife down. I then walk over, pick the knife up, kill the shrink, and then hand the knife back to you so you kill yourself. That is what the church is doing. According to science/facts/reality, all of Africa may be bye bye in next 2-3 decades due to disease and famine caused by the church interfering with everything that would save the Africans.

Also, back to the 10 points, and 11 since you can't have 1 without 0, they see people rolling on the floor speaking in tounges and this somehow proves they are right. Science changes, learns things, studies things, and somehow this makes science wrong. They hear theory and as Issac Asimov mentioned, creationists think theory is something you come up with after a night of drinking, when Theory in science means fact, just don't know everything about it. Theory of Relativity, or my favorite, Theory of Gravity. Gravity affects things with mass, light photons have no mass, so how does gravity affect light? How do black holes suck in light? That is why science exists, to explain things, whole religon would have you be sheep who take it from the shepard.

So, what was it? 10 and 0 for science? Oh yeah, virgin birth thing, wrong. In the books the church left out for giving women power, Mary had kids before Jesus, for she was, get this, MARRIED TO JOSEPH! I don't get it, they were married for years and never had sex? Again proves how far the heads of religous people are up their asses. In fact, 2 of the disciples were his brothers, while Jesus's wife Mary Magdeline was the leader of 7 female disciples. But the church being controlled by men threw these books out because they gave women power. Oops, forgot, the bible isn't edited, they just magically change for reasons the church only knows. Why no 2 bibles are the same length, same font, same size books, but not the same amount of pages, some off by dozens of pages.

Oh, and to the christian above me, how does it feel to be that flexible? I mean, using something written by man that science proves to be bs? I swear, if I write a book that says I am god, and the proof is in the book, are you going to start worshipping me? No? Then you go to hell because my book says I am god because it says so, the proof is in the book I wrote, so it is right, cause it says I am god, so if I wrote it, it must be right. Damn, head hurting from trying to use christian logic.

[edit on 17-4-2005 by James the Lesser]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Oh, and to the christian above me, how does it feel to be that flexible? I mean, using something written by man that science proves to be bs? I swear, if I write a book that says I am god, and the proof is in the book, are you going to start worshipping me? No? Then you go to hell because my book says I am god because it says so, the proof is in the book I wrote, so it is right, cause it says I am god, so if I wrote it, it must be right. Damn, head hurting from trying to use christian logic.

[edit on 17-4-2005 by James the Lesser]


I will use your logic - God damn athiests, Nazi, commie Jew haters. Responsible for wiping out hundreds of millions of people and supressing freedom. Spreading their propaganda BS and forcing people to live by it or else be exterminated. Killing people that believed in God or were christian. Worship my theory or Die! Build lots of weapons and deprive your citizens of basic needs - oh yeah, Athiest governments are so much better than christian.

Your level of argument is debunked on so many levels that I really could not bother going any further.

All I have to say re the Bible is that it requires faith. Take it or leave it. You don't see me jumping up and down like a 2 year old getting upset about Darwin do you?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

What's that supposed to mean Ed? Oh the heavy burden of martrydom. If only the evolutionists wouldn't respond.


Like you don't love it.


Well I guess I am Physic ....



Originally posted by marg6043
I think ed is a prophet ha,ha,ha,



See?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
The biggest reason Evolutionists are taken more seriously than creationist in the scientific community is simple....

Being scientists, evolutionists found evidence and formualted a theory from it and are working on this theory , which changes and evovles as more evidence becomes available... science.

Creationists, have a pre set 'theory' they desperately try to prove... so they use what evidence fits in with this theory and ignore the rest.

The main difference in case you havent noticed is. Evo's formulate a theory on evidence, Creo's formulate evidence on a theory... now which one is science?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
now which one is science?


Well you miss one critical point, the creationists look to a creator for the answers not man becuase man did not create man.


Its not about science, science at one time knew nothing of bacteria and yet the Bible told the Isrealites to avoid them, not by name of course but by practice.

Evolutionists are fine when they are in control of things around them, it is whe that control breaks down that the difference between the two stands out.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years

This is a good example of the dangers of lots of creationist literature. This is not a case that is applicable to anything, and it does not refute the slow accumlating materials above.
Per this page, here is some supplementary info on the Lost Squadron. Here is the expeditions page about it. The long and the short of it is

The famous Lost Squadron landed on a flowing glacier, not in a stable ice field. They were covered in a dynamic flow. Their situation is therefore quite irrelevant to the question if ice-layer dating.

Also, per this page


The real problem is falsely extrapolating the rates of snow accumulation from the coastal location where the planes are found to the interior location where the ice cores are taken. If a person compares local rates of measured snow accumulation with the rates of accumulation determined from the decompaction of the ice cores, a person finds that they are very similar. A person can "decompact" according to depth, the change in thickness and stretching of the ic, the original thickness of snow a certain thickness of ice represents reliably.

Here is an Ice Cores FAQ
and here is a somewhat vitriolic article about it.

Please don't mistake it for nitpicking, this is just a rather well known, oft-noted, and ultimately incorrect story, so I wanted to make the full bit avail.


cheeser
how do we explain light rays reaching earth from stars that are more than 6,000 light years away

I have seen two propositions on this. One is that the universe was created such that there was already a stream of light. IE, it was created to look old. THe other is that the idea that these stars are so far away is a consequence of problems with redshift or that inflation somehow affected everything, in some way, however I am not too familiar with those ideas so don't take this strawman type version as the actual.


shmick25
Athiest governments are so much better than christian.

I agree that jtl's argument is poor, however, the nazis were not atheists. Communists, certainly, but hitler often referenced the creator and apparently was more of a christian. There were others in the party that were sort of new-agey/theosophistic pagan-revival types, but not many atheists that I am aware of. Certainly all the preists and ministers and deacons who were part of the party weren't athiests.


edsinger
Well I guess I am Physic ....

No more than a troll needs to be psychic in order to know how to get predictable responses. Anyway, how come you haven't addressed any of hte issues? Was it all a hope of being able to post the above?

Its not about science

Science is about science. Creation Science is a fraud, because its got nothing to do with science. Teaching creationism is schools is bogus, as you illustrate, because its not about science.

Evolutionists are fine when they are in control of things around them, it is whe that control breaks down that the difference between the two stands out.

There is no evidence for this, and anecdotal information implies the opposite. When the faithful have problems, they tend to go to crap, and maybe pull thru with just their faith intact.
But this is silly, because there are pious christians who accept evolution. Besides, how would one 'rely' on evolution in the same way that one relies on faith to get thru dark times? The idea is silly. No one actually does it.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by specialasianX
now which one is science?


Evolutionists are fine when they are in control of things around them, it is whe that control breaks down that the difference between the two stands out.


No Evolution is essential stating that we have no control and no-one has control over the creation of life and the advancement of species...

Creationists are the ones who freak out when they realise that it is random and there is no higher power holding their hand. Science isnt about controlling it is about learning and understanding... Religion is about control



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Does it really matter? If evolution is the tool of Gods creation so be it. It doesnt mean anybodys wrong, it just means things are more complicated then we first thought.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I agree with Croat... i dont see why creationists cant accept that evolution doesnt neccesarily rule out the exsistance of god... in fact, i have seen alot of 'cretionists' accept that the world is 4.5 billion years old and the 'days' spoken of in Genesis were in fact not 'days' per se, but much longer periods of time...

I'm not saying i believe in god (had to put a disclaimer in here) but i dont see how science conflicts with god... in reality Science and Religion are both looking for the same thing, just in different ways.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

shmick25
Athiest governments are so much better than christian.

I agree that jtl's argument is poor, however, the nazis were not atheists. Communists, certainly, but hitler often referenced the creator and apparently was more of a christian. There were others in the party that were sort of new-agey/theosophistic pagan-revival types, but not many atheists that I am aware of. Certainly all the preists and ministers and deacons who were part of the party weren't athiests.


Nygdan, Ed and shmick are why I post the way I do. Croat, Thomas Crowne, and about 2 others are what I wish christians could be. These people aren't "Yes master, whatever you say master. Of course god created your mother out of ice from Pluto, you said so master." But realize science is real, science actually might IDK, be right. But they then use god, that god made it, god allowed it, god did it. Now if only they could stop with the cloud people they might be perfect, but being human, no one is perfect. And while Croat and I don't agree on what the church does, he is a good person to debate with for he is more then "Bible says it is right because it says so, the proof the bible is right is that the bible says it is, and anyone who disagrees is going to hell." but actually read more then the first sentance and tries to use reality/facts to back up his claims, to bad people like him don't control religon.

Anyways, again, last I checked science was killing religon with what? 10 and 0 score? Haven't seen any comeback or last qaurter rebound from religon yet. Or any reality/science/facts that support the bible in any way, shape, or form.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
"If common sense were a bat I would beat it into everyone of your heads." Jane Lane from Daria

Anyways, scienctists or bronze age people who had to clean their pants whenever a earthquake happened..... Wonder who would know better.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.


and one I will add, since I think without 0 you can have no 1.

0- You are so stupid when the priest rapes you and says he blessed you, you believe him.

Anyways, gee, they found mammoths frozen in ice over 10,000 years ago and had Mammoth Steaks, in fact in Alaska, Siberia, Northern Canada, the people would often find Mammoths, thaw them out, and eat them cause well, that's alot of steak. But wait, 10,000 years old? Poof, bible wrong,
!AGAIN!

I swear, and where is Dwayne Gish? Figured he would have jumped on this one. I mean, this guy got flat earth, center, creation, and that the flood created the Grand Canyon/dinosaur bones planted by satan taught as science in science classes in public schools in Georgia before the courts stepped in and told them they couldn't teach ignorance as fact, but reality.


Awesome post, you got my WATS vote. It's broadly insulting, and oh so true...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join