Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


It's not about arguments. That statement is a reflection of a personal belief of mine, not one that I'm basing my argument that man and dinosaur coexisted on.

There is plenty of evidence out there that man and dinosaur lived together, unfortunately the thread has kind of moved away from that main point.

Originally posted by nyk537

There is plenty of evidence out there that man and dinosaur lived together...

No there isn't. There is ZERO evidence that man and dinosaur lived together. Lots of evidence that they didn't though...

reply to post by CalledOUT

There are other threads dealing with the poetic license and post hoc rationalization required to view the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge. Feel free to peruse those for refutations of your "scientifically accurate" verses.

Evolution is not a scientific theory either, and it's a faith filled guess with no solid evidence to back it up.

You are asserting here that there is no solid evidence to back up the theory of evolution. Human Chromosome 2 would beg to differ with you. Given that this particular chromosome is solid evidence of common descent and, therefore, evolution, it looks like your assertion is wrong.

It lacks common sense, reason and it's void of any real facts.

And that’s why science isn’t based on common sense but rather on what’s observable.

Let’s take a look at your common sense arguments:

- Mutations kill or sterilize the species

Using only the colloquial definition of a mutation, which is almost exclusively negative, I can see how someone uneducated in biology would assert this. But there are also neutral mutations and beneficial mutations, and some of the beneficial ones are even present in humans:

-- There's a common mutation that yields better lipoprotein profiles and reduces the risk of coronary artery disease. (Galston et al; Z Gastroenterol 1996 Jun;34 Suppl 3:56-8)
-- There's a common mutation that enhances immune cell function in humans. (Virchow et al; FEBS Lett 1998 Oct 2;436(2):155-8)
-- There's a common mutation the lowers the risk of myocardial infarction by reducing the presence of one of the factors in the blood coagulation cascade. (Iacoviello et al; N Engl J Med 1998 Jan 8;338(2):79-85)

As a point of fact, you have somewhere on the order of 50-150 mutations that differentiate you from both of your parents and you aren't dead or (I'm assuming) sterile.

- There is NO accurate dating methods used, all have been proven grossly inaccurate but still highly regarded by all religious atheists since it's really all they have (nothing)

Proven to be grossly inaccurate, or merely asserted to be by people who don’t really understand radiometric dating? There’s been an abundance of citations in this thread alone that directly refute every attack on radiometric dating made to date. Heck, even the “creation scientists” are on board with using radiometric dating these days. Granted, they’re misusing the methods and misrepresenting the data, but even they recognize the validity of the science behind it.

-The moon is going away. so from the rate of departure, it would have hit us 30,000 years ago. Millions not an option.

Feel free to show some peer-reviewed and published data on this.

-The sun is shrinking, fast. It's going at about 5ft per hour now (.1% every 10 years), and probably faster earlier when it had more surface area. for a 6,000 year old earth this is only a 6% gain in circumference, not a big deal (especially if the canopy theory is correct, annnnnd it is). For evolutionists that need millions of years to sound intelligent, the sun would double in size just 100,000 years back; which would be like starting life on earth in the middle of a bonfire...

From your own linked article:

Since publication of this article in 1980, studies of the sun’s size have yielded different results. Currently, scientists are not united enough concerning any broadscale trends to support age estimates based on the size of the sun.

And, again, feel free to show some peer-reviewed and published data on this. Oh, right, there was none. The ICR article is based on an abstract and not published data. Here's a refutation of the ICR article written by a professor at Calvin College.

-Biggest reef is less than 4,000 years old (great barrier reef)

I find it funny that you’re misrepresenting your own source for this one. Even the article you’re linking says “could have formed” not “definitively formed”, especially given that it recognizes that reef formation rates are variable across several orders of magnitude. You are apparently willing to throw out the measured rates on the slower end of the scale and only take the fastest one because it gives you the answer you want. Intellectual honesty at its finest.

This is another Hovind classic. Here’s the reality:
And don’t just watch it inline, go the actual YouTube video page since the person that produced the video actually has a comprehensive list of citations for why saying that it’s 4000 years old is inaccurate.

-Biggest desert on earth (Sahara) is only 4000 years old (FLOOD was 4k ago)

Even creationist websites recognize that this isn’t proof of a young earth and that the Sahara has been around for millions of years. Every idea of Kent Hovind’s has been roundly refuted and the creationist movement in general has since realized that touting anything Kent says as scientific fact does more harm than good.

- Oldest tree about 4000 years old (hmmmm…)

Except for that pesky conifer in Sweden that’s over twice as old. Must not exist.

I could go on, but I think this is enough. I’m sure there’s a number of points here that can be argued and would be hard to prove either way,

I could go on, but I think this is enough. All of your points can readily be exposed as some combination of misunderstanding science, deliberately misrepresenting facts, or just outright lying…

but I doubt anyone could explain the biggest proof of a young earth, Shrinking sun.

… just like this one.

If you would like more evidence on any of these topics, you can find both sides to the arguments on google.

Indeed. I highly encourage people to seek out just this kind of information. One side is supported by science that can be reproduced and verified. The other side requires such feats of intellectual dishonesty to support their claims that it turns one stomach to believe that they can call themselves pious.

Atheists try so hard to keep their religion a float…

There are plenty of scientists that aren’t atheist, so it’s your argument that conflates evolution and a scientifically accurate view of the age of the earth with atheism that doesn’t float.

But I urge you to look at all the facts and use common sense to come to the conclusion that you were in fact created,

Common sense hardly comes into play with creationism, especially when they resort to an argument that God does things like altering the fossil record to test the faith of believers.

you are not a mutated monkey that came from a rock.

If this is what you really believe abiogenesis and evolution state, you should try to learn more before judging either them on their veracity as a hypothesis and a theory, respectively.

There is a Creator that Is who HE Is, and many people have misrepresented H-m, but HE will not bend to what any finite man thinks or does. You can find H-M in the scriptures, I recommend starting in Genesis and not asking anyone else to interpret what you are reading till you get to Revelations. If it doesn’t scare you, and give you hope once you know the Creator, try again.

Given how you’ve misrepresented scientific fact in your post, I find this statement incredibly hypocritical. Let me leave you with this though from the end of the Calvin College paper I cited earlier:

Of far greater concern to me, however, is the negative effect that these episodes of misinformation may have on the Christian witness to a scientifically knowledgeable world. The world to which we direct the Christian message has every right to expect our scholarship, including our natural science, to be characterized by the highest standards of competence and integrity. If we publicly fail to maintain those standards, how can that world gain confidence in the message we pro- claim? If we disseminate misinformation in the name of Christian scholarship, who will listen to our preaching of the gospel? More than fifteen centuries ago St. Augustine expressed this same concern in his commentary on Genesis:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size ... and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrasing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, bow are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven ... ?" -- St. Augustine

reply to post by CalledOUT


I was all set to star your post, until I got to the "Common Sense Arguments". I think I'd like to address a couple of them, so that you don't accidentally try to use them in the future.

Originally posted by CalledOUT

Common Sense Arguments:
- Mutations kill or sterilize the species

Nope. MOST mutations are indeed harmful to the organism, but not all of them, by any means.

I'm not going to get into the dating method debate, so I'll let that stand, even though I may not agree entirely with it.

-The moon is going away. so from the rate of departure, it would have hit us 30,000 years ago. Millions not an option

The Moon is receding from the Earth at the rate of 1" per year. This means that 30,000 years ago, it was all of 2500 feet closer to the Earth, or just under half a mile closer. Not even noticeable in a distance the size of the lunar orbit. These figures, however, assume a constant rate. That assumption, in turn, assumes that there have been no major impacts to either body, or any measurable mass changes in either, in the interval period.

-The sun is shrinking, fast. It's going at about 5ft per hour now (.1% every 10 years), and probably faster earlier when it had more surface area. for a 6,000 year old earth this is only a 6% gain in circumference, not a big deal (especially if the canopy theory is correct, annnnnd it is). For evolutionists that need millions of years to sound intelligent, the sun would double in size just 100,000 years back; which would be like starting life on earth in the middle of a bonfire.... www.icr.org...

I hadn't heard this one before, so let's assume the figures are correct, and run with it. The sun is about 865,000 miles mean diameter. That's 4,567,140,864 feet, or thereabouts. 5 feet per hour shrinkage is about 42,990 feet per year, or about 8.14 miles per year, which works out to 81.4 miles over the 10 year period postulated. 0.1% of the sun's diameter is 4,567,141 feet, or 865 miles, an order of magnitude greater that the 81.4 miles calculated to be the shrinkage amount from the figures above. Their figures don't add up.

Beyond that, it's known that stars have an expansion/contraction cycle, and I have to wonder just how much of this alleged solar shrinkage can be attributed to that, and will later turn back to the solar swelling part of the cycle, prompting a plethora of doom and gloom, "sky is falling" threads at ATS, much to the amusement of all.

I can't say much about oceanic reefs, since I don't know much about them. All I know about reefs is that they will cut the crap out of your feet, and that they are used to support every argument imaginable from AGW to, apparently, Bishop Usher's Young Earth. Therefore I'll let that slide due to my own lack of knowledge in the matter.

-Biggest desert on earth (Sahara) is only 4000 years old (FLOOD was 4k ago)

I think the Sahara is just a tad older than that, but yes it's relatively recent. The flood I'm quite sure occurred a lot longer ago than that. As I recall, it was around 5000 BC, or 7,000 years ago, rather than 4,000. Here again, however, the debate devolves to the inaccuracy of dating methods, both biblical and geological, so I'm not going to argue the point.

- Oldest tree about 4000 years old (hmmmm…)

Do you mean the oldest LIVING tree? I have to assume so, since I am in possession of a fossil tree branch that is 318 million years old, and am reliably informed that trees made their debut quite a while before even that - around 420 million years ago. The one I have came from about 3/4 of a mile under the surface of the Earth, and no, I don't think Satan dropped it off there just to pull my leg. If he's that bored, he needs to get a hobby.

Dinosaurs living with Man? YES, but ‘dinosaur’ is a recent term, they were called Giant Lizards/dragons 200 years ago.

Now that I can agree with. I have a couple of stories from more recently than that, but I'll not bore you with them.

I doubt anyone could explain the biggest proof of a young earth, Shrinking sun.

Ahem... ^ .

Now, before you get all wadded up at me, I personally believe in Creation. It's the only thing that explains all the observable phenomena to me, so I've made up my own mind in the matter. However, employing the arguments listed above in favor of it are doomed to failure and strife.

Has anyone brought up the problem of the evolution of organs like eyeballs? What advantage is it to an organism to evolve a lens without concurrently evolving a retina? Of what Earthly use is a retina, without a lens to focus light on it? Obviously, two separate and simultaneous mutations would be required there, without any advantageous stimuli. Then there's the question of the other parts of the eye, such as the eyeball, the cornea, the iris, so on and so forth, that are no Earthly use alone, without the other parts. What are the odds that all of these mutations would spontaneously occur, all at once?

I have no doubts as to the reality of natural selection - I just don't think it produces new species - it only accounts for intraspecific variations - much less new genera, families, orders, etc. Those would seem to be more a product of some un-natural selection. Nor can natural selection account for the "Punctuated Equilibrium" that Gould postulates, however much he wishes it could.

I believe there is a creator, a God, and that he's laughing at all of us as we go along groping in the dark, trying to make sense of what we don't even see.

/ sorry...

@ iterationzero and nenath
Okay, mutations are not the same as Adaptions. You listed a number of ADAPTIONS. Go dictionary.com the difference, could help you. If you see a mutated kid that can barely walk (which is a common natural mutaion) It is a LITTLE different than if you see a giant ripped guy that works out every day. Evolutionists will never be able to see the difference....

As for the sun, I'm PRETTY sure that when energy is used and sent out into space.... the star will shrink. It's not a tide in the ocean that comes back like atheists try to pin it against, it's blowing up and hitting all other planets with tons of released energy, which if that energy cannot be created or destroyed.... must have left the sun. Gas bubble may form creating variations is sizes and blow up sending massive amounts of energy into space, but that's still loss of massive amounts of energy into space. So unless that's a magic spring or replenish able energy that obviously no one here can produce... IT'S SHRINKING!!

As for abiogenesis, it's a mere theory like all evolution theory that obviously cannot be tested because it's not science. And one human cell is so complicated that they still don't know the smallest particle that exists in one cell. creating proteins does not equate to creating life. And if it did happen like that... don't think think there would be a shred of evidence that it still happens or at least replicatable in a lab controlled environment? buuut it's not, ever will be either. which means it's NOT science.

As for radiometric dating, it could never be proven accurate simply because we would have to have a constant for C14 coming into our environment, and we do not. And we would have to have consistent saturation of objects to C14 across the board, but it has been shown MANY TIMES OVER that it is VERY different for every object. I've read the arguments for C14, and they're pretty pathetic. if the same object can show millions of years different aging with the same test... I THINK it's full of #. You are trying to save the Titanic, it's just not gonna happen bud.

Who said I was a Christian?

Some ancient cultures were aware of dinosaur fossils. They didn't know how old they were, or exactly how you piece them together, but they knew they were large animals. That's how the story of the Griffin and other mythological animals got started.

As for the drawings of the long neck dinosaurs & sculptures, couldn't they have found the remains, put them together and guessed what the animal looked like.. much like we do? There were scientific minds in the past, they weren't all cave men.

The Earth may or may not be 4.5 billion years old, but I guarantee it is older than 6,000 years old.. lol. And what if the lava that formed those rocks is as old as the test say it is? Just because it erupted ~55-60 years ago doesn't mean the lava itself wasn't present much longer than that.

Not saying for definite one way or another, just trying to stimulate thought.

Originally posted by nenothtu


Has anyone brought up the problem of the evolution of organs like eyeballs? What advantage is it to an organism to evolve a lens without concurrently evolving a retina? Of what Earthly use is a retina, without a lens to focus light on it? Obviously, two separate and simultaneous mutations would be required there, without any advantageous stimuli. Then there's the question of the other parts of the eye, such as the eyeball, the cornea, the iris, so on and so forth, that are no Earthly use alone, without the other parts. What are the odds that all of these mutations would spontaneously occur, all at once?

It's not really a problem, only to those wishing to push a creationist agenda:

Evolution of the eye

Evolution of the eye (2)

trilobite eyes

Originally posted by CalledOUT


Genesis 1:25
"And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind," (there has never been a witnessed in recorded history the birth of a crocodile by a frog. Or a shark from a bass. As much as evolutionist hate this one... common sense wins again, don't need much test tubes to easily see this one, but you do need A LOT of creative logic.

From their viewpoint, because they weren't cognisant of the processes involved, this made sense from a purely observational standing. However, it is totally ignorant of the actual processes involved and is illogical.

Originally posted by CalledOUTJob 36:27-29

Evolution is not a scientific theory either, and it's a faith filled guess with no solid evidence to back it up. It lacks common sense, reason and it's void of any real facts.

No it's not, it just appears that way to the Scientifically illiterate.

just a quick search, but if you really want to find out, look into the peer-reviewed Journals on Evolution

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. This theory, now compiled into modern evolutionary synthesis (or just evolutionary synthesis), is the very best explanation for all the things we have discovered about life on earth. It arose from the facts, and not after the fact. And there is nothing better that explains how life came to be the way it is. Life arose here billions of years ago (though we don't know how), and, as the planet changed, so did the life on it. Or it died. A link can be found below.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of natural selection explains that fact. That is what scientific theories do; they are supported by massive amounts of evidence in the service of explaining fact and phenomenon in the real world.

Read more: wiki.answers.com...

(from link above)

Evolution. International journal of organic evolution

Originally posted by CalledOUT

Common Sense Arguments:

- There is NO accurate dating methods used, all have been proven grossly inaccurate but still highly regarded by all religious atheists since it's really all they have (nothing)

" common sense"?

"Religious atheists" is an oxymoron.

Originally posted by CalledOUT

-Biggest reef is less than 4,000 years old (great barrier reef) www.answersingenesis.org...

I'm not even going to mention the Devonian Reef Complexes beyond this

Originally posted by CalledOUT

- Oldest tree about 4000 years old (hmmmm…)

Ignorance of Glossopteris is NOT an excuse.

Originally posted by CalledOUT
I've read the arguments for C14, and they're pretty pathetic.

Well, I supplied a link to the Oxford Radiocarbon accelerator unit but nobody seems to want to actually contact them and ask about their research methods.


I could go on and on and on, but frankly I'm in a state of despair about the Scientific ignorance of so many people and the blind acceptance of faith. The difference between faith and science is that Science is observational, testable and open whereas faith is blind, limiting and leads to ignorance, as shown many times over in this thread.

reply to post by CalledOUT

Okay, mutations are not the same as Adaptions. You listed a number of ADAPTIONS. Go dictionary.com the difference, could help you. If you see a mutated kid that can barely walk (which is a common natural mutaion) It is a LITTLE different than if you see a giant ripped guy that works out every day. Evolutionists will never be able to see the difference....

Because you didn't use the "reply to" function, I'm not sure whom you are trying to refute, but what you say here is practically a non sequiter. If a microbe develops a mutation that allows it to resist an antibiotic, that mutation is a positive adaptation, as it will allow that microbe to survive and reproduce, passing the mutation on to its replicants. We can witness this process at work today. In fact, it is a public health crisis!

As for abiogenesis, it's a mere theory like all evolution theory that obviously cannot be tested because it's not science.

This makes no sense. Abiogensis is falsifiable both in theory and practice. The fact that it has not yet been replicated in a laboratory does not falsify it. Its falsifiability, by definition, makes it science.

And one human cell is so complicated that they still don't know the smallest particle that exists in one cell.

I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to mean. Cells are composed of molecules, which, in turn, are composed of atoms. The structure of the physical universe is reasonably well known to at least the level of electrons, protons and neutrons. (Very fine scale subatomic particles are still an area of constant discovery.)

creating proteins does not equate to creating life. And if it did happen like that... don't think think there would be a shred of evidence that it still happens or at least replicatable in a lab controlled environment? buuut it's not, ever will be either. which means it's NOT science.

Creating proteins is a step towards creating life. Astrobiologists are constantly finding new amino acids, the building blocks of life, in new and surprising places. As I said, just because synthesizing life in a laboratory hasn't been done yet is not proof that it can never be done. To assert otherwise is a profession of faith, not scientific objectivity.

Originally posted by dadgad
It always amazes me that creationists still exist. By that I mean people who use the bible as their reference point for understanding life and history. The other day I watched an amazing documentary by BBC called life. Never before did I see the evolutionary process of species so straight in my face. All I could think is, my goodness why are there still creationists left?

Creationist still exist because science has yet to find any hard evidence, in fossils or by eye witness to support evolution. And the claim that the earth is billions of years old has many big holes. When two scientist can do the exact same procedure and come up with dates that are thousads or hundreds of thousands of years apart how can we except any result as fact? Why is it so hard to believe in God and so easy to believe in a system that is yet to be proven? Either way your acting on faith.

"What gives evolutionary scientists any more credibility that creationist scientists?"

The fact that they are actual real scientists who use actual real scientific method. I am so sick of the absolute nonsense of creationists and their ilk. They consistently show themselves to be incredibly ignorant of science and deliberately dishonest in their methods, they never provide reputable sources for their arguments, and their ultimate fallback source is a book of fiction written several thousand years ago that states such scientific nonsense as hares are ruminants and the sun revolves around the earth, and it's becoming more and more tiresome every day.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by CalledOUT

 

Okay, mutations are not the same as Adaptions. You listed a number of ADAPTIONS. Go dictionary.com the difference, could help you. If you see a mutated kid that can barely walk (which is a common natural mutaion) It is a LITTLE different than if you see a giant ripped guy that works out every day. Evolutionists will never be able to see the difference....

Because you didn't use the "reply to" function, I'm not sure whom you are trying to refute, but what you say here is practically a non sequiter. If a microbe develops a mutation that allows it to resist an antibiotic, that mutation is a positive adaptation, as it will allow that microbe to survive and reproduce, passing the mutation on to its replicants. We can witness this process at work today. In fact, it is a public health crisis!

Okay, did they change? or did they get stronger adapting to a foreign stimulus? Have humans been recorded as becoming immune to certain poisons by adapting to them? Yes. did they turn into a butterfly or their offspring? no.

As for abiogenesis, it's a mere theory like all evolution theory that obviously cannot be tested because it's not science.

This makes no sense. Abiogensis is falsifiable both in theory and practice. The fact that it has not yet been replicated in a laboratory does not falsify it. Its falsifiability, by definition, makes it science.

You got me! it can be proven false! But just because you can test something and prove it does not work... does not give it more clout. And many people claim that this is how life came from a rock... so the claim is still a fairy tale, but I'll give you that proving it false could be called science. Otherwise, believing there's a God is science too, and I KNOW nobody on this forum will accept that.

And one human cell is so complicated that they still don't know the smallest particle that exists in one cell.

I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to mean. Cells are composed of molecules, which, in turn, are composed of atoms. The structure of the physical universe is reasonably well known to at least the level of electrons, protons and neutrons. (Very fine scale subatomic particles are still an area of constant discovery.)

Just saying that life is so complex we still haven't even fully understood a single cell. So how can we say it put itself together from a rock in the correct sequence?

creating proteins does not equate to creating life. And if it did happen like that... don't think think there would be a shred of evidence that it still happens or at least replicatable in a lab controlled environment? buuut it's not, ever will be either. which means it's NOT science.

Creating proteins is a step towards creating life. Astrobiologists are constantly finding new amino acids, the building blocks of life, in new and surprising places. As I said, just because synthesizing life in a laboratory hasn't been done yet is not proof that it can never be done. To assert otherwise is a profession of faith, not scientific objectivity.

Both are a profession of faith if you understand the meaning of the word. You can't prove it.. but you know it must be correct! So you live your life based on the belief = FAITH.

reply to post by CalledOUT

As for the sun, I'm PRETTY sure that when energy is used and sent out into space.... the star will shrink. It's not a tide in the ocean that comes back like atheists try to pin it against, it's blowing up and hitting all other planets with tons of released energy, which if that energy cannot be created or destroyed.... must have left the sun. Gas bubble may form creating variations is sizes and blow up sending massive amounts of energy into space, but that's still loss of massive amounts of energy into space. So unless that's a magic spring or replenish able energy that obviously no one here can produce... IT'S SHRINKING!!

People need to stop trying to use the laws of thermodynamics when they don't know anything about them. The laws of conservation of mass and energy only apply to a closed system. The Sun is not a closed system, therefore mass and energy can be created.

reply to post by sacgamer25


When you're dating something billions of years old a couple thousand years is not a big difference. Furthermore, the way the Earth is dated is by using a number of methods and this means a number of samples. Each of these samples may give different dates, but that doesn't change the fact that they all date to right around 4.54 billion years. So, you could argue that the Earth is 4.53 or 4.55 billion years old, but there is no logical way one can argue for Earth being less than 4.50 billion years old or greater that 4.60 billion years old.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by CalledOUT

 

As for the sun, I'm PRETTY sure that when energy is used and sent out into space.... the star will shrink. It's not a tide in the ocean that comes back like atheists try to pin it against, it's blowing up and hitting all other planets with tons of released energy, which if that energy cannot be created or destroyed.... must have left the sun. Gas bubble may form creating variations is sizes and blow up sending massive amounts of energy into space, but that's still loss of massive amounts of energy into space. So unless that's a magic spring or replenish able energy that obviously no one here can produce... IT'S SHRINKING!!

People need to stop trying to use the laws of thermodynamics when they don't know anything about them. The laws of conservation of mass and energy only apply to a closed system. The Sun is not a closed system, therefore mass and energy can be created.

So do you have a study for this? Sounds more like atheist fairy tales to me! I know you guys like to basically say, "well it's theoretically sound so it's got to be true although there no way to test or prove it, and another scientist with many letters behind his name reviewed it too, so it's true"

reply to post by CalledOUT

Okay, did they change? or did they get stronger adapting to a foreign stimulus? Have humans been recorded as becoming immune to certain poisons by adapting to them? Yes. did they turn into a butterfly or their offspring? no.

That's not what evolutionary theory says. As different populations respond to environmental pressures, they accumulate different sets of mutations. Some are positive, some are random. After many generations these populations may have acquired so many different mutations that they are no longer able to interbreed. At that point, they have become different species. Over vast stretches of time, the mutations accumulate to the point that it is difficult to see the relationship of the two populations. A single eukaryotic cell may have been the progenitor of rhinos and butterflies.

You got me! it can be proven false! But just because you can test something and prove it does not work... does not give it more clout. And many people claim that this is how life came from a rock... so the claim is still a fairy tale, but I'll give you that proving it false could be called science. Otherwise, believing there's a God is science too, and I KNOW nobody on this forum will accept that.

But theists always define their deity in such a way that it is not falsifiable, either in principle or in practice. That is why theology is not a science.

Just saying that life is so complex we still haven't even fully understood a single cell. So how can we say it put itself together from a rock in the correct sequence?

No one is asserting that as a proven fact, but there is, as yet, no actual evidence to the contrary. It remains a more fruitful supposition than: "Everything is the way it is because a deity made it that way." Science is a-theistic, not atheistic. Reflect on the difference.

Both are a profession of faith if you understand the meaning of the word. You can't prove it.. but you know it must be correct! So you live your life based on the belief = FAITH.

Wrong. One is an assumption that allows the application of a methodology that can provide objective answers. No-one is claiming that abiogenesis is an objective fact; they are simply affirming that it is a strong possibility worth investigating. Believing in a creator despite any evidence is a profession of faith, in the absolute sense of the term.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

When you're dating something billions of years old a couple thousand years is not a big difference. Furthermore, the way the Earth is dated is by using a number of methods and this means a number of samples. Each of these samples may give different dates, but that doesn't change the fact that they all date to right around 4.54 billion years. So, you could argue that the Earth is 4.53 or 4.55 billion years old, but there is no logical way one can argue for Earth being less than 4.50 billion years old or greater that 4.60 billion years old.

Well I would agree, but if you do the math and find out the percent it's actually correct, you will come to a number around .0006% correct most of the time. And I'm sure if the test could go negative, it would be smaller. So forgive me for not trusting it for dating much of anything accurately.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by CalledOUT

 

Okay, did they change? or did they get stronger adapting to a foreign stimulus? Have humans been recorded as becoming immune to certain poisons by adapting to them? Yes. did they turn into a butterfly or their offspring? no.

Originally posted by DJW001
That's not what evolutionary theory says. As different populations respond to environmental pressures, they accumulate different sets of mutations. Some are positive, some are random. After many generations these populations may have acquired so many different mutations that they are no longer able to interbreed. At that point, they have become different species. Over vast stretches of time, the mutations accumulate to the point that it is difficult to see the relationship of the two populations. A single eukaryotic cell may have been the progenitor of rhinos and butterflies.

I know this is their theory, but you cannot take adaptation like the many samples I have stated, and carry that into a new species. You say it can with tons of time. But actually, as adaption takes place, there become less and less information available to adapt, disprove macro evolution. "In other words, populations can change and adapt because they have a lot of information (variety) in their DNA ‘recipe’. But unless mutations can feed in new information, each time there is variation/adaptation, the total information decreases (as selection gets rid of the unadapted portions of the population, some information is lost in that population). Thus, given a fixed amount of information, the more adaptation we see, the less the potential for future adaptation." creation.com...

You got me! it can be proven false! But just because you can test something and prove it does not work... does not give it more clout. And many people claim that this is how life came from a rock... so the claim is still a fairy tale, but I'll give you that proving it false could be called science. Otherwise, believing there's a God is science too, and I KNOW nobody on this forum will accept that.

Originally posted by DJW001
But theists always define their deity in such a way that it is not falsifiable, either in principle or in practice. That is why theology is not a science.

Pretty broad statement, might agree with you on somethings, but not to useful science which many atheist claim people that believe in a creator hate because they argue evolution.... which is science guessing that's been proven false. But hey, since an alternative has never been proven. So far we're right.

Just saying that life is so complex we still haven't even fully understood a single cell. So how can we say it put itself together from a rock in the correct sequence?

Originally posted by DJW001
No one is asserting that as a proven fact, but there is, as yet, no actual evidence to the contrary. It remains a more fruitful supposition than: "Everything is the way it is because a deity made it that way." Science is a-theistic, not atheistic. Reflect on the difference.

Both are a profession of faith if you understand the meaning of the word. You can't prove it.. but you know it must be correct! So you live your life based on the belief = FAITH.

Originally posted by DJW001
Wrong. One is an assumption that allows the application of a methodology that can provide objective answers. No-one is claiming that abiogenesis is an objective fact; they are simply affirming that it is a strong possibility worth investigating. Believing in a creator despite any evidence is a profession of faith, in the absolute sense of the term.

Whay can't you do it for both? Think outside of the box.

reply to post by CalledOUT


First we need to define an open system.

In the natural sciences an open system is one whose border is permeable to both energy and mass.[2] In physics a closed system, by contrast, is permeable to energy but not to matter.

Source

Now it is fairly obvious that the Sun is an open system. There is nothing surrounding it that prevents matter from entering it. Now the Sun then takes the atoms from this matter and fuses it into heavier atoms. This then releases a great amount of energy. So, as long as matter can enter into the Sun it has an unlimited supply of energy. This is simple physics that has been known for quite some time.

reply to post by CalledOUT


Yes we can date objects back to a known time. But there is no proof that anything dated back more than 5000 - 6000 years ago is accurate. I believe that the Bible and old earth can co-exist. But Evolution really doesn’t make any logical sense. In 6000 plus years of human history have we witnessed any animal give birth to something not of its kind. I’m not talking about animals of the same species creating mules. I am talking about a reptile giving birth to a mammal. The only evidence for evolution is the age that science gives to the universe and earth. I do believe in micro-evolution but macro-evolution is simply not provable. All of the science that dates the earth prior than 6000 years and dates the universe simply cannot be proven. By the way I am very educated and believed in evolution for most of my life. Evolution is not logical. Man giving birth to a new species goes against all known facts about reproduction. Sure Micro-Evolution over a long period can solve this but where is the fossil evidence? Oh yes it simply does not exist.