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.

 

Observable unbiased scientific data argues for a 'young' earth.

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
PsychoHazard, you may want to put the material your posting in the appropriate [external source] quote tags. What your doing is a violation of ATS' Terms and Conditions of use with regards to plagiarism/posting work written by others.


Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't thinking.
All fixed now.




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I did not state that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, they prove me right.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   


The dilemma faced uniquely by evolutionary creationist when dealing with this issue, apart from any concern of the materialistic evolutionists, is the placing of the very credibility of Jesus Himself on the line. As the Bible emphatically states that by and through Jesus Christ all things were made (John 1:1-5), might it not be reasonable to assume He would have a firm apprehension of all of the details of creation; to include its time line? Jesus stated (Matthew 19:4-6) “…at the beginning…” man and woman were created and joined together as man and wife. The use here of the definite article “at”, as well as the Greek sentence structure of this passage leave absolutely NO room for a “Gap” and “Day/Age” justification for any evolutionary hybrid of creationism out of the Genesis account of creation. Jesus is either lying here or He is deluded; there are no other possible explanations for the specificity of this passage; the “beginning” in the Greek means just that, the beginning.
reply to post by Rren
 



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I did not state that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, they prove me right.


No ut according to what you wrote you said that carbon dating was wrong and the tool that scientist used was wrong.

And I still cant see where the laws of thermodynamics prove you right? If I was you I would clarify otherwise I can see this thread going nowhere and being moved from ATS to BTS



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
According to the second law of thermodynamics energy (hence matter) does not get more organized. A case in point:



When Probability Theorist began to run the numbers on just single small protein molecule coming together by chance, it was found that a single short functional protein of 100 amino acids (some are thousands of amino acids long) had 1 chance in 10 to the 30th power of happening randomly. When they ran the numbers on a single haemoglobin molecule, it had 1 chance in 10 to the 650th power of randomly forming. Because of this molecules specificity, some contested it had a much higher ratio of improbability then this. This means that EVEN if one conceded that the universe was as old as evolutionist claimed (15 billion years = 10 to the 18th seconds in all of history), with one try every thousandth of a second there would not be enough time in all of time for random chance to have made a single functional haemoglobin molecule. With 10 to the 80th power of particles of matter in the entire universe, there was not enough matter either!


reply to post by OzWeatherman
 




[edit on 6/12/2008 by SGTChas]

[edit on 6/12/2008 by SGTChas]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
According to the second law of thermodynamics energy (hence matter) does not get more organized. A case in point:


Snowflakes. Amazing really.

@Oz - I think the only solution here is to just close this subforum for a while till people get with the program. Nothing's going to change otherwise.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I believe God created the universe but I do not believe the Bible says one thing about when or the age of the earth.

My personal opinion is young earth creationism is actually heresy.

And the OT Genesis acct. was not Greek but Hebrew. The Hebrew term "resh-t" is what is translated "In the Beginning" stands for a indefinite period of time not a point in time. "In the beginning" could mean a week or billions of years the Bible doesn't say. The heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning" not during the week. The week describes God preparing a place for man. Not how or how long. It does a disservice to Gods word to misuse it.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Ok there is absolutely no evidence that supports the earth is 6000 years old besides the bible.Sorry dinosaurs were not running around with man at that time period.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

Dinosaurs lived more than 65 million years ago,they are aged through radiometric dating the fossils and the surrounding rocks.

Case closed.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Did you forget the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament? The Hebrews' translation into Greek by Hebrew scholars ("the 70") proves that the "Evening and the morning..." WERE 24 hour days.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


Really? How do you explain the documented finds of dino tracks WITH human tracks - SOME human prints IN the dino tracks? As for dating methods, perhaps YOU would like to buy a 450 year old Timex?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
According to the second law of thermodynamics energy (hence matter) does not get more organized. A case in point:



When Probability Theorist began to run the numbers on just single small protein molecule coming together by chance, it was found that a single short functional protein of 100 amino acids (some are thousands of amino acids long) had 1 chance in 10 to the 30th power of happening randomly. When they ran the numbers on a single haemoglobin molecule, it had 1 chance in 10 to the 650th power of randomly forming. Because of this molecules specificity, some contested it had a much higher ratio of improbability then this. This means that EVEN if one conceded that the universe was as old as evolutionist claimed (15 billion years = 10 to the 18th seconds in all of history), with one try every thousandth of a second there would not be enough time in all of time for random chance to have made a single functional haemoglobin molecule. With 10 to the 80th power of particles of matter in the entire universe, there was not enough matter either!


reply to post by OzWeatherman
 




[edit on 6/12/2008 by SGTChas]

[edit on 6/12/2008 by SGTChas]


This completely wrong

The second law of thermodymaics states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value

Entropy is the measure of how far a smoothing out process has occured within a system, which means matter does become more organised.

You are talking about statistical entropy in which one must choose all the variables that are applicable to change, not just the varaiables that may change in the microstate which is what you alleged probability theorist has done. You cant simply apply his finding to the determine the age of the earth

Im not a genius of thermodynamics but I know enough to see that there are serious flaws in what you are saying

I really wish people would stop believing everything they read on the internet



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by alienstar
 


Really? How do you explain the documented finds of dino tracks WITH human tracks - SOME human prints IN the dino tracks? As for dating methods, perhaps YOU would like to buy a 450 year old Timex?


And again, all you have to use is radiation dating, you still havent proved that this is not accurate



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 



Don't sweat it. You had a link there so I don't believe you would have been penalized for plagiarism.... not sure if they dock ya points for not using the appropriate tags or not. Just an FYI.





reply to post by melatonin
 


There's no need to close the forum... or bitch about it either. The mods will move these threads if they're in the wrong place 'til everybody gets up to speed with the new guidelines, which, let's be honest, are less than clear. Far from fair either, imo, but I don't make the rules. Pretty soon all of ATS will be relegated to discussing only atheist friendly topics and/or the conspiracy of the wicked bible believing idgits to turn the US into a theocracy. Oh the fun we'll have. Meh.



reply to post by SGTChas
 



I don't follow. Your/their YEC interpretation [the text you quoted] argues that the "at" "leave[s] absolutely NO room for a “Gap”" Would that not also mean that there's no six day gap either... therefore, by your/their reasoning, man was created in that first instance ["in the beginning"] Could you tell me where that quote you posted is from? Also, what's Jesus' message in Matthew 19:4-6, and how does it relate to the point you're making here. This, imho, is an example of the heresy and danger in YEC doctrines.

PS,

reply to post by SGTChas
 



The Paluxy tracks are no longer believed to be human/dinosaur (if that's what you meant).



www.bibleandscience.com...

Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research wrote, "Another research project of some note involved the alleged discovery of human and dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy River, central Texas. Having been nominally involved since the late 1960's, 1 undertook a major role in 1975 from nearby Oklahoma, culminating in a summary book, Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs, and the People Who Knew Them, in 1980. This book was withdrawn in 1985 when further research called the original interpretation into question. Research continues, but I am of the opinion that the evidence is, at best, ambiguous and unusable as an anti-evolutionary argument at the present time."


[emphasis mine] He's a young-Earther. So far as YEC goes, ICR is about as good as it gets.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Rren]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by alienstar
 


Really? How do you explain the documented finds of dino tracks WITH human tracks - SOME human prints IN the dino tracks? As for dating methods, perhaps YOU would like to buy a 450 year old Timex?


Please do a little more research. The prints have been proven to be all dino prints either eroded or manipulated to look like human prints.

source

A lot more on this subject if you care to research.

I admire you for your faith, but having blind faith based on misleading interpretations of the bible and bad science is only going to lead to disappointment when the truth finally sets in.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
According to the second law of thermodynamics energy (hence matter) does not get more organized. A case in point:



When Probability Theorist began to run the numbers on just single small protein molecule coming together by chance, it was found that a single short functional protein of 100 amino acids (some are thousands of amino acids long) had 1 chance in 10 to the 30th power of happening randomly. When they ran the numbers on a single haemoglobin molecule, it had 1 chance in 10 to the 650th power of randomly forming. Because of this molecules specificity, some contested it had a much higher ratio of improbability then this. This means that EVEN if one conceded that the universe was as old as evolutionist claimed (15 billion years = 10 to the 18th seconds in all of history), with one try every thousandth of a second there would not be enough time in all of time for random chance to have made a single functional haemoglobin molecule. With 10 to the 80th power of particles of matter in the entire universe, there was not enough matter either!


reply to post by OzWeatherman
 




[edit on 6/12/2008 by SGTChas]

[edit on 6/12/2008 by SGTChas]


And as for your statitics, remember the saying from Mark Twain :



There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. The semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.



en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
There's no need to close the forum... or bitch about it either. The mods will move these threads if they're in the wrong place 'til everybody gets up to speed with the new guidelines, which, let's be honest, are less than clear. Far from fair either, imo, but I don't make the rules. Pretty soon all of ATS will be relegated to discussing only atheist friendly topics and/or the conspiracy of the wicked bible believing idgits to turn the US into a theocracy. Oh the fun we'll have. Meh.


I'm just interested in seeing the outcome of the 'change'. not bitching, I never suggested anything should happen, and can take it or leave it. IMO, I doubt much will happen, words are easy, and it will take fairly heavy moderation to fully actualise the current ideas (e.g., we also have a new 'perfect god' thread). Alternatively, the subforum could be closed for a short time while people figure out where to place their hats. And it's pretty clear what the PTB are asking, to me anyway.

To attempt to be on-topic as much as possible, the O&C forum has just become a place for tedious and repeated circular arguments like this Hovind-based tripe, might as well fire up my robot to post for me, so predictable, so boring. And that's even without the current drama. But of course, it's been a while for you


And to be even more on-topic, every time a crystal forms it must apparently break the second law. Oh dear...MCT question for y'all...

1. According to some, the second law suggests matter cannot become organised, however crystallisation happens every day. Therefore:

(a) the second law is wrong.
(b) crystals don't really form and they are a figment of our imagination
(c) this hovind-style argument is specious.
(d) goddidit

[edit on 12-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
[1. According to some, the second law suggests matter cannot become organised, however crystallisation happens every day. Therefore:

(a) the second law is wrong.
(b) crystals don't really form and they are a figment of our imagination
(c) this hovind-style argument is specious.
(d) goddidit


Yeah, its true, thats where entropy comes in to play.....which is involved in the second law, but which the op and the "alleged scientist" from obviously a religious science group didnt take into account

I dont think the op has any idea, he's just quoting from those biased websites


[edit on 12/6/2008 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Did you forget the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament? The Hebrews' translation into Greek by Hebrew scholars ("the 70") proves that the "Evening and the morning..." WERE 24 hour days.


All that really matters is the ORIGINAL text. That is written in Hebrew for ancient Hebrews. It was never intended to be a science text book for 20th century people. I think you do Christians a disservice by misrepresenting the Bibles clear intentions.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
Scientific phenomena and observable data in support of the young earth and solar system that argue for the Biblical contention:


..unbiased? you even used dr dino as a source.


Apparently he thinks humans could fend off a T-rex by breaking his little arms off and bleeding him to death..



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Why, thank you sir... Most of my quotes are taken from my thesis "Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, the Reconciliatory Attempt of Evolutionary Creationism, and Biblical Creationism." That you thought I was just taking quotes from creationist web sites is a high complement. As you can guess, I was about as well excepted in the Electrical Engineering Department at F.I.U. as I am by such enlightened founts of wisdom as you. Only slightly more acceptable to the yankees at the U of M...

Please forgive however, my momentary loss of sanity in opening such a thread; I had learned long ago from a Orthodox Jewish Rabi and Professor that trying to reason with a matererialistic naturalist was like relieving oneself in the wind, only the latter was cleaner. My bad; go back to sleep - for now - reason will never cause one to except what must be taken by faith.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join