ok here is what I believe. I believe that the bible was written by God through man. I believe that about 6,000 years ago God made the universe, and 4400 years ago he sent a flood that destroyed the earth and rearranged it quite a bit. 2000 years ago jesus came and now we are here in the year 2005. so technically jesus came more around 2005 years ago. ok

legends about a world wide flood date back no earlier than 4000 BC.

I meant 4000 years ago. not 4000 BC.

Things die. Fact of life. I think a 4400 year old tree is pretty special, but it by no means proves anything. Climates can change, and that is something that has been proven as well. Aside from that, if the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old, then why isn't that desert 6K years? It took 1600 years for God to create a desert, when he created everything else in 7 days?

well like I said, there was a flood and a flood would have destroyed a desert. if water covered the face of the earth for more than a year, im pretty sure that a desert wouldnt be there anymore. it didnt take him any time to make a desert, the desert is just that old. God can do whatever he wants, he told noah to build a boat instead of performing a miracle and killing all the bad people. by building a boat people would have a warning. he gave them time to think about not being so wicked.
and you are right, the climate can change and it has, thats why there are no more dinosaurs. and actually dinosaurs used to be called dragons. and there are many legends of man killing dragons. and there are even pictures such as hyrogliphics (spelling is probably wrong). the bible says that there was water above the atmosphere (firmament). it was probably water in the form of ice suspended by the magnetic field by what is called the meissner effect.
this would produce hyperbarric conditions and that is how we got dragons. a dragon is just a gigantic reptile.
if there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere, that produced hyperbarric conditions, that would explain a lot of the large fossils we find. we find large human bones, and skeletons. some are found that are over 10 foot tall. but no one has ever told you about that. ill bet.
ok enough on this one ask me if you wanna know more about this one.

And how much salt or sediment should there be in the ocean after millions or billions of years? Is there any chance whatsoever that it could have a) solidified and formed the ocean floor or b) been left on a beach, extending the shorelines?

well if it extended the shorelines that would be awesome, because as far as I know, the shore lines are becoming smaller and smaller as the waves drag sand out into the ocean.

they used anual ice rings to determine how old the earth is. but the anual rings are not anual rings, you look up "the lost squadron" about planes that got lost in WWII was found under thousands of anual rings, the truth about those is that 5 rings can form in one day.

look up the lost squadron and find out how far down they were, I think it was a mile and a half deep. but thousands of rings we drilled through to get to them. what im saying about this is, I learned back in high school which was not too long ago. im only 18. I learned that one anual ring meant one year. but the fact is, that many rings can form in one day.

Ok, no trees will stand there for millions of years, and some are found upside down. Am I the only one who sees something funny about that? And if it does not take things very long to petrify then wouldn't it be able to stand for quite awhile once it's petrified? Besides, can't trees stand for a while even after they've died? I'm sure I've seen quite a few pictures of petrified forests that are still standing.

ok trees do not grow upsidedown. you just stuck your foot in your mouth. a good explaination for this is that there was a flood and during that time the sticks(trees) got mixed in with the mud(layers). how does a tree become upsidedown over millions of years? thats a problem if evolution was true.

First off, we can't see the really distant stars with the naked eye; we use extremely sensitive telescopes for that. No one can be sure where the earth was half a year ago? I find that pretty hard to believe. If that's the case, then we can't be sure exactly where it is now--I'm sure technology hasn't jumped that far in 6 months, and we certainly would've recorded it. I'm not even sure what the point of whether we knew where we were or not is... And what relevance does the number we each could own have? I missed that...

in order to get a wider base to make a bigger triangle to measure star distance, they use earths orbit. thats where is comes into play. and the number of stars shows that it was all created at the same time. because if the universe was billions of years old, im sure that there would be many more supernova rings out there. and more blown up stars.

Again, where are you getting this information? Especially about the speed the earth was spinning. That's something I've never heard anyone say, from a creationist argument or a scientific argument.

well look that up. last time I checked the earth was spinning at about 6,000 miles per hour at the equator. everyone knows that the earth is slowing down. thats why we have leap year and leap second. I learned this when i was like 12.

Not all galaxies are spirals for one. There's quite a few that have entirely different shapes. And how are you making your calculation that it would take 10K years for them to lose their shape?

quite right not all galaxies are spiral shped, but a lot of them are. i
it has been calculated it would take about 10,000 years to lose spiral shape. also comets only last about 10,000 years, that has also been calculated. if the universe is billions of years old why are there still comets?

the geologic collumn does not exist. you just find fossils in the order you would like them to be found. that does not prove anything.

No, you didn't mention that. Human footprints have also been found with tire tracks, bird tracks, cat and dog tracks. That doesn't mean they were walking there at the same time though.

well this does not mean they were walking at the same exact time. but what about when they find a human footprint inside a dinosaur print. that means it was pretty much within the same couple months. this means that dinosaurs and humans must have been here at the same time. dinosaurs and human bones have been found in the same layer(s), this again is a problem to the evolution theory.

may I point out that one of these theories is indeed wrong.

anyways...

you were saying...

I do not believe you understand how complex the Earth really is. And what makes Christianity right? How about the other religions? The Native Americans or the Aztecs, Mayans? Were their religions wrong? Christianity has changed so much over the years. The bible has been changed and changed ever since it was first written. Parts have been left out, added in. It is a book written with the understanding of the day.

hahahahaahahahahahaa

Originally posted by expert999
well like I said, there was a flood

There is absoltely no evidence for a global flood. And if anything the evidence that is had contradicts the occurance of a global flood, besides there not being enough water on the planet for it.

if there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere, that produced hyperbarric conditions, that would explain a lot of the large fossils we find.

The 'water canopy' idea has been completely discredited and there was never any reason to ever accept it. Amoung other things, it'd've created unbearable pressures at surface level. And hyperbaric conditions wouldn't explain anything. There are large fossils because there were large organisms, and at the same time, under these 'hyperbaric conditions' there were small animals. The whole thing is bunkum.

because as far as I know, the shore lines are becoming smaller and smaller as the waves drag sand out into the ocean.

This is incorrect. In some places the oceans and seas wear away the beaches, and in other places they dump sand and add to the shores. Ostia in italy used to be coastal, its not anymore. Other places in greece were once more coastal and are now further inland.

I learned back in high school which was not too long ago. im only 18. I learned that one anual ring meant one year. but the fact is, that many rings can form in one day.

The thing is, if you incorrectly use the science, like creationists do with the 'lost squadron' example, then ofcourse you get erroneous answers.

a good explaination for this is that there was a flood and during that time the sticks(trees) got mixed in with the mud(layers).

You do understand that that has nothing to do with evolution and that local floods that do this occur all the time, no?

how does a tree become upsidedown over millions of years?

It doesn't. No scientists are saying it does.

thats a problem if evolution was true

How?

because if the universe was billions of years old, im sure that there would be many more supernova rings out there. and more blown up stars.

Your 'being sure of it' is completely meaningless, just as my 'being sure of it' would be.

everyone knows that the earth is slowing down. thats why we have leap year and leap second. I learned this when i was like 12.

That is not why there are leap years, at all.

also comets only last about 10,000 years, that has also been calculated.

Who calculated this and how?

if the universe is billions of years old why are there still comets?

You don't think its possible for comets to form? That they could've only been formed, when, in the period known as inflation?

but what about when they find a human footprint inside a dinosaur print. that means it was pretty much within the same couple months.

No one has found any human prints next to dino prints. Outside frauds, like a paluxy.

. dinosaurs and human bones have been found in the same layer(s)

No, they have not. At least not outside of a burial, and I am not familiar with any instances like that.

If the supposed co-existence of man and dino in the fossil record refutes evolution, and its untrue, then why doesn't the segregation of faunas into comletely different strata prove evolution? If man and dino in one layer would disprove it, then why doesn't the fact that we don't find lots of advanced mammals in the carboniferous, nor any dinosaurs in the mississipian, prove evolution? IE, why is the 'standard of proof' biased against evolution here?

As usual, my post was completely ignored by the creationist who started the thread, not even argued against, so I wonder at the wisdom of taking the time to type this.

Nevertheless, here goes.

Creationists keep asking "Where's the proof? Where can it be seen?"

Let's just, for one brief moment, completely ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence from biogeography, paleontology, embryology, and morphology to support evolution, and simply go with what has occurred within the span of one human life.

Penicillin was put into use in 1943. By 1947, the first resistant strains were discovered.

Methicillin was developed in the 1960's. By 1980, resistant strains were found all over the place.

Vancomycin was the next big hitter, and as of 2002, resistant strains have been found.

"Oh, but that's just germs, they don't count, right?"
Fine. Let's examine the animal kingdom.

Peter and Rosemary Grant, have spent two decades working with Galapagos finches, and have developed different breeds with differing beak sizes.

William R. Rice and George W. Salt, through 35 generations of fruit flies starting from an unsplit lineage, have bred two distinct species out of what was once one.

DDT, developed in 1939, has, by 1990, resulted in more than 500 species (including 114 kinds of mosquitos) who are immune or resistant to at least one pesticide.

Things adapt in order to survive long enough to procreate. Period.

"But the Bible says evolution isn't real!"
Bull F---ing S--t.
There isn't one single passage in the Bible that refutes evolution, or states that God did not account for it in creating the Earth. In fact, Papal Decree in the Roman Catholic Church (quite possibly one of the strictest enforcers of tradition) has been that the two are quite compatible, on a number of occasions.

Peter and Rosemary Grant, have spent two decades working with Galapagos finches, and have developed different breeds with differing beak sizes.

they are all finches, that does not prove evolution at all.

"But the Bible says evolution isn't real!"

it doesnt say that God used evolution, if God had to use evolution, he is pretty dumb and cant get it right the first time. and if he used evolution, that means that it took millions of years of death to finally get man. I believe that the bible said that he created man in his image on the sixth day. not evolution.

There isn't one single passage in the Bible that refutes evolution, or states that God did not account for it in creating the Earth. In fact, Papal Decree in the Roman Catholic Church (quite possibly one of the strictest enforcers of tradition) has been that the two are quite compatible, on a number of occasions.

well if you know anything about the catholic church, their translation of the bible comes from the same place all the other translations except for the king james bible. the king james bible was translated seperately. all the others was translated from the alexandrians, who took out and added what they wanted. shows how much catholics know about their own religion.


Evolution and Creation are polar opposites. they are the exact opposite


oh and by the way. everything that Dr hovind talks about, is not by his own knowledge, he uses other peoples studies and results, theories (and admits to them not being fact, just theory) nothing is original with him. he always refers to someone else. so its not all his own thing. and I have taken time to research over half of the people he refers to, and have also found other people stating the same thing or close to it.

"Oh, but that's just germs, they don't count, right?"

well if it didnt turn into a different organism, than evolution was never proven there.

That is not why there are leap years, at all.

ok then why do we? you are telling me that the earth is not slowing down, or loosing speed in its rotation? I think you are wrong there...

No one has found any human prints next to dino prints. Outside frauds, like a paluxy.

uh yeah they did, and even scientists are starting to speculate that dinosaurs and man co-existed. and where they found these prints, they had a park made, and proved that they were made by humans feet because of the compression in the limestone. and this was found under ripped up, undisturbed limestone. so there is no way for someone to have carved these into the limestone.

and about the trees upsidedown in connecting the layers of strata, how does this happen? and how do you get so many? trees do not grow upsidedown. and how did they get there like that? trees also do not petrify by use of air, if exposed to oxygen, they oxidize, causing them to rot. so they cannot petrify and stand there for millions of years and wait for layers to form around them. there is no way that an evolutionist can give a logical explanation for this.



about the other religions, someone has to be wrong and someone has to be right. why dont you defend the other religions? unless you know of course that they are wrong.

William R. Rice and George W. Salt, through 35 generations of fruit flies starting from an unsplit lineage, have bred two distinct species out of what was once one.

its still a fruitfly isnt it? or rather, arent they? there is something called a genepool some parts of the genepool you get and thge others you dont get. if its still a fruitfly, the bible agrees with that. the bible says that they will bring forth after their kind, not species. so if you have a fruitfly and a housefly, they both are the same kind of bug just different species. again that does not prove evolution.

DDT, developed in 1939, has, by 1990, resulted in more than 500 species (including 114 kinds of mosquitos) who are immune or resistant to at least one pesticide.

like a said before, the genepool. they found people that were resistant to penicillin before it was even introduced to the public. how do you explain that? its all part of the gene pool as to somethings that can be resisted. if you spray a bug with a pesticide, it may be resistant, but there is a limit. it will never become resistant to Gasoline. so again, evolution was not present.

The earth is not 6-10,000 years old.

ok smart one, then how old is it? I know its less than 10,000 im saying its more around 6,000. where did matter come from, did it always exist? or was it created? because since everything is stuck in time (except for God) then it has to have a beginning. where did it come from?
what caused the big bang?
if all the matter in the universe was gathered in one area at one time, that would be a black whole(if light can be efffected by gravity, know one knows if it can, no one knows if like has mass)
but lets just say that it can. nothing could escape its gravity. now even an explosion. all the matter in the universe is a lot. and you can only pack it so far.

yes the evolution theory is a theory, but when one believes in it, it becomes their religion.

Things adapt in order to survive long enough to procreate. Period.

yeah, what kind of adaptations are you talking about. I can adapt to eating less, ill only get skinny or die. and thats about it. my behavior might change, but I will wont grow a tail, or grow anymore limbs, I will still be a human, and my decendants would still be human in the same environment, if I had to adapt to survive by swinging from trees. I would still look like tarzan, I would never grow a thumb on my foot.

evolution cannot be proven, and how come it can only happen once, long ago and far away? why doesnt it happen how days? how come birds dont hatch out of reptile eggs once in a blue moon?

its a religion

Answer my statement!!!!!! If evolution is wrong then why is Christianity right? Are other religions wrong? It is not just Christianity and evolution. There are many other religions that do not agree with either.

[edit on 6/23/05 by jetsetter]

If dinos and man existed at the same time there would be no humans left. Some dinos were very good hunters.

Kent Hovind is not a scientist. He is a fraudelent religious con-artist.

so what. dont be jeaious. he doesnt work for anyone. his business survives off of donations.
how is he a con-artist? he can prove you wrong better than I can.
and ill bet you that, ill be in the same category as him being that I believe that same thing and keep shoving facts in your face. facts that you dont know how to answer to, example: trees connecting layers, petrified and some upsidedown.

I have an answer, but you dont.

how about you tell me what the other religions teach about the origin of the earth and universe. you tell me how they are right or wrong. I believe in the bible because it has not been proven wrong and will never be proven wrong.

you can continue to believe in what you want. even I know that the only reason you believe in it, is because you hope that its true. and since you believe in evolution does not make it a fact. it has now become your religion.

You have yet to give us one fact other than you belief in creationism and your disdain for those who disagree with you.


I dare you to show some evidence that scientists are considering the idea that dinos and humans lived together.

You are posting blatant lies. The burden of proof is on you.

There is no credible evidence for the absurdities you post.

If you bothered to research anything you talked about you would know this.

Kent Hovind runs a theme park and sells creationist materials, that is hardly donation run. A theme park for Jebus' sake!!

So please, attack my ideas, call them crazy and religous but keep the personal attacks to yourself.

Originally posted by expert999

Kent Hovind is not a scientist. He is a fraudelent religious con-artist.

so what. dont be jeaious. he doesnt work for anyone. his business survives off of donations.
how is he a con-artist? he can prove you wrong better than I can.
and ill bet you that, ill be in the same category as him being that I believe that same thing and keep shoving facts in your face. facts that you dont know how to answer to, example: trees connecting layers, petrified and some upsidedown.

I have an answer, but you dont.

how about you tell me what the other religions teach about the origin of the earth and universe. you tell me how they are right or wrong. I believe in the bible because it has not been proven wrong and will never be proven wrong.

you can continue to believe in what you want. even I know that the only reason you believe in it, is because you hope that its true. and since you believe in evolution does not make it a fact. it has now become your religion.

The problem is that it has not been proven right either. Some native American beliefs say that we rose up from the Earth. Is it wrong?

If all these religions have different teachings than Christianity does it mean that they are all wrong?

Baha'i Faith
Buddhism
Confucianism
Hinduism
Jainism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Vodun (Voodoo)
Asatru (Norse Paganism) *
Druidism
Goddess Worship
Wicca
Witchcraft
Caodaism
Damanhur Community
Druse
Eckankar
Elian Gonzalez religious movement
Gnosticism
Gypsies
Hare Krishna - ISKCON
Lukumi
Macumba
Mowahhidoon
Native American Spirituality
New Age (a.k.a. Self-spirituality, New Spirituality, etc.)
Osho ® (followers of Rajneesh)
Rom, Roma, Romani, Rroma, (a.k.a. Gypsies)
Santeria Elian Gonzalez religious movement
Satanism; The Church of Satan
Scientology
Thelema
Unitarian-Universalism
The Creativity Movement (formerly called World Church of the Creator
Zoroastrianism

Originally posted by expert999
3. Chemical Evolution – the forming of all the elements (religious) fusion works, but you cant fuse past iron

You're just a christian fundamentalist troll that is incapable of independent thought outside your endoctrination scheme (the bible). By the way, you can fuse way past iron but then the reaction is endothermic, consumes energy. Noone by the way claims that the heavier elements are formed by fusion, except indirectly by neutron absorption with the neutrons coming from fusion reactions.

I'm through with this thread.

Life is too short to waste it trying to argue science and religion with someone who is educated in neither.

The only "evolution" that may or may not be able to be proved is that of just about everting on Earth, EXCEPT man. No one has yet to explain the "missing link" of mankind. Or in laymans terms how Neandertal man jumped to Cro-Magdon man.

Originally posted by GREGNOW
EXCEPT man. No one has yet to explain the "missing link" of mankind. Or in laymans terms how Neandertal man jumped to Cro-Magdon man.

You mean Cro Magnon man and there was no such jump. The Neanderthal branch was a dead end.