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.
Originally posted by Joshm2u
your just saying its a bunch of lies, becuase it might conflict with your evolutionist beliefs. most of his theories do make sense, you should try researching them sometime before claiming they are lies.
Tassadar
We use the same evidence you do. Simply from another perspective.
I don't believe in God because of creation. I believe in God because of what Jesus Christ has done for me. That crucifixion that happened 2000 years ago, it has had an impact on me.
You see them and presume the mountains arose from the ground over millions of years and these are our ancestors somehow...
I see them and I just try to think about how big a global flood really had to be and I'm awestruck and so thankful God isn't going to flood the world again.
Evolution has simply found a way to try to explain the world and deny that God exists.
For the whale to have evolved from some other kind of land-based organism like many scientists seem to argue now, thousands of generations of whales would have died meaning there would have to be a gap because it's impossible
Josh2mu
the thing is we havent been getting taller and bigger. that is just what evolutionists belive, and are propogating to the world.
if the atmospehere was different a few thousand years ago then people would have grow larger
and as for the first law of thermodynamics......the big bang has something coming from nothing
LightSeekerA Law is similar to a mathematical postulate, in that it is usually expressed as a single mathematical formula and is universally accepted as true at face value, because it has always been observed to be true.
The whole subject of Quantum Physics and M Theory or String Theory, if you like doesn't really enter in to our debate.
The scientific investigation of the creation of our world and universe is no different than yours, although we start with a different hypothesis than you do. But to be a true hypothesis, it must posses the possiblilty of being wrong, so it requires as much discipline and integrity, scientifically speaking, as does your own.
I'll answer that, if Josh doesn't mind
The theory of evolution not only violates the first law of thermodynamics, it violates the second law as well. Here's how:
evoluton cruncher
that is a fact and indeed scientific. the reason that is scientific is because it has been observed and tested and demonstrated.
the magnetic field has lost 6% within the last 150 years. that was published in scientific magazine. if you want that reference, ill dig that one up too. well you cant just keep losing, eventually you will have nothin left to lose.
if anyone can understand where I am going with this, they will come to realize that evolution does try to cover origins, but it doesnt do a great job at providing evidence for the big bang, evolution of stars, of the evolution of chemicals. evolution tries to skip everything and start with life.
that is not scientific. in my opinion.
anyone who knows that first two laws of thermodynamics knows that the big bang is a big joke and that matter and energy cannot just come into existence just because the only other explanation is "God said let there be"
I would like to know how the earth was proven to be millions of years old. carbon dating does not work, that has been proven. K-AR dating does not work.
the geologic collumn was thought up before any of those dating methods were invented.
this was based on the assumption that different layers are different ages.
but i do know that Dr Hovind (has the title Dr because of his PHD)
I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [to how does the sun burn] As far as the oxygen required, I'll have to pass on that one too and do some more study on that one. I don't know that I could prove one way or the other. I think there are different types of burning though - some do not require oxygen. Sorry about that, Andres. I'll have to do some research and check back with you on that one.
does present many good facts about this earth. and many people just try to shut him out before they even do the research for themselves
I took a look at Dr Hovind and looked up his work and researched him and what he preached. and sure enough, I am coming to the exact conclusions he has come to
and I believe that is the reason many people try to discredit him is because he seems to make great progress in fitting science into the bible
Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
Nygdan have you ever even seen Dr. Hovind's series? Or do you just believe everything that other evolutionist's tell you?
but he speaks so much that he is bound to make mistakes such as the ones listed.
Even if he is mislead slightly in some of the information he speaks on,
I should say that people who believe Evolution are mislead far more
Please watch his videos to get a better understanding of what it is he is so generously preaching.
. He says that Evolution should only be taught in private schools which are funded by people who have believe it. A public school should teach non- controversial subjects like Math.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I would like to know how the earth was proven to be millions of years old. carbon dating does not work, that has been proven. K-AR dating does not work.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
is Dalrymple, G. Brent an evolutionist?
I dont want to make this post a short one.
what about the Geologic Collumn, how did they get the dates before radiometric dating was even invented?
darwin claimed certain layers to be certain ages and radiometric dating wasnt even around yet.
I know how some radiometric dating methods work, and I know for a fact that two methods dont work.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
dude you need to watch some of Hovinds videos, he explains how the dating methods work, and I have looked them up. they dont work, I reformatted my computer so I dont have the links anymore, but go to www.arky.org that is one site that explains problems with Carbon dating. possibly other dating methods.
site
ARKY = Absolute Real Knowledge for You! Biblically based is the only absolute!
Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
If you were really serious about learning about this stuff rather than finding a site that tells you what you want to here, try the site below. It's also the link that came up on a google search: Radiometric dating.
This is one of the best analyses I have ever read on C-14 dating vs. Biblical record.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
dude you need to watch some of Hovinds videos, he explains how the dating methods work,
and I have looked them up. they dont work,
but go to www.arky.org that is one site that explains problems with Carbon dating. possibly other dating methods.
would you ever consider the possibility that maybe everything that supports evolution and the earth/universe being billions of years old is something you might want to hear just to push the theory?
evolution cruncher
the problem with the atmosphere that makes carbon dating a flawed method?
jake1997
If you really do want to be comprehensivly informed on this finite, but important topic... its worth it to suffer through the other side of the info.
Originally posted by Jakomo
I love how some people refute that Evolution is Just a Theory.
Originally posted by Jakomo
Fine. Gravity is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The notion that the Earth revolves around the sun is a theory. Electricity is a theory. Electrons are tiny units of charged mass that nobody has ever seen.
Originally posted by Jakomo
according to science, it took many billions of years just for life to start evolving INTO the first fish and insects and lesser organisms.
Originally posted by Jakomo
back in the days of Genesis, people had no frickin clue what a DNA strand was, or a genetic mutation, or could even conceive of a number as large as a billion. So they explained it how they could.
But now we know more.
Fine. Gravity is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The notion that the Earth revolves around the sun is a theory. Electricity is a theory. Electrons are tiny units of charged mass that nobody has ever seen.
according to science, it took many billions of years just for life to start evolving INTO the first fish and insects and lesser organisms.
back in the days of Genesis, people had no frickin clue what a DNA strand was, or a genetic mutation, or could even conceive of a number as large as a billion. So they explained it how they could.
But now we know more.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
according to science, it took many billions of years just for life to start evolving INTO the first fish and insects and lesser organisms.
no man, that is according to evolution,
so you are trying to say that we are more wise than those in the past? I can agree to some extent, but im sure that adam and eve knew what a billion meant. im sure that he was the smartest man that ever lived.
You are saying evolution isn't science now?