|
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
 Posted - 06/26/2003 : 00:31:21
|
Ok, where should i start,
1. All scientists say the sun is shrinking, ver very very slowly but it is. If the earth is some 70 billion years old then the sun would have been HUGE! Therfore the earth burns up, and none of us are here.
2. Carbon Dating has been proven inacurate many times, so the fossils found in Africa mean absolutly nothing. Other than that they found a human who either was pre-flood, or died in the flood.
3. Darwin, himself said that the largest flaw in his theory, is that there are so many missing links, such as where are all the fossils of the billions of years of evolution. And all the various creatures it brought.
4. Evolution is to efficiant, a creature decides he wants legs, poof he has legs, i need some eyes, alakazam wow i have eyes. If thats the way it has worked in the past why can't we do that now? Hey I think I need a third eye, oh no it doesn't work anymore, those stupid cells 70 billion years ago must have used up all the pixie dust.
5. And then theres the fact that, a Neanderthal, has the exact scull of a person with Downs Syndrome. It's really gonna be a shock when a coupl hundred years from now, they think they found a Neanderthal scull, then they do some DNA testing and it's just some poor kid with down syndrome from our generation. Boy will that be a slap in the face.
I could go on forever, but I am not gonna, so what im trying to say is that the so called "experts" in evolution are lieing to us all, they know it's not true they just don't want to face the cosiquences of god being the real creator. (How does it feel to have no answers to a 14 yr old
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
 Posted - 06/26/2003 : 01:13:53 [Permalink]
|
Here we go again guys, I'll be quick, because there are those better qualified than myself that should reply to this.......
Originally posted by creation88
Ok, where should i start,
quote:
1. All scientists say the sun is shrinking, ver very very slowly but it is. If the earth is some 70 billion years old then the sun would have been HUGE! Therfore the earth burns up, and none of us are here.
So you are prepared to accept what scientists say when it suits you, plus the earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
quote:
2. Carbon Dating has been proven inaccurate many times, so the fossils found in Africa mean absolutly nothing. Other than that they found a human who either was pre-flood, or died in the flood.
The old carbon dating has been proven inaccurate chestnut, go to www.talkorigins.org and have a browse around.
quote:
3. Darwin, himself said that the largest flaw in his theory, is that there are so many missing links, such as where are all the fossils of the billions of years of evolution. And all the various creatures it brought.
Do you realise how small the chance is for something to fossilize? Even smaller the chance of finding something. Have you seen how painstaking archaeology is? It's not that we have found so little, it is that we have found so much!!! Of course there will be gaps.
quote:
4. Evolution is to efficiant, a creature decides he wants legs, poof he has legs, i need some eyes, alakazam wow i have eyes. If thats the way it has worked in the past why can't we do that now? Hey I think I need a third eye, oh no it doesn't work anymore, those stupid cells 70 billion years ago must have used up all the pixie dust.
No comment here, I haven't got time for such claptrap.
quote:
5. And then theres the fact that, a Neanderthal, has the exact scull of a person with Downs Syndrome. It's really gonna be a shock when a coupl hundred years from now, they think they found a Neanderthal scull, then they do some DNA testing and it's just some poor kid with down syndrome from our generation. Boy will that be a slap in the face.
There have been more than one Neanderthal skulls found, I presume that they all had Downs Syndrome.
quote:
I could go on forever, but I am not gonna, so what im trying to say is that the so called "experts" in evolution are lieing to us all, they know it's not true they just don't want to face the cosiquences of god being the real creator. (How does it feel to have no answers to a 14 yr old
Oh, I'm sure that there will be plenty of answers here...
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
 |
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 01:43:18 [Permalink]
|
I'm sure that the more knowledgable folks here will soon be answering your questions, but in the meantime, here are a couple to start with:
1. You're making three mistakes: first, assuming that the sun is like a candle and will shrink as it consumes its fuel, that this process will be linear so that you can easily extrapolate backwards from present size to size at a given time in the past, and that main sequence stars (like our sun) change size appreciably during their time on the main sequence.
In fact, the stellar lifetime is more complex than that, and "most scientists" do not contend that a main sequence star will shrink as it ages. Here's a link to an overview of stellar evolution:
http://www.stellar-database.com/evolution.html
2. The limit of carbon-14 dating is established by how long it takes for the C-14 in a formerly living thing to decay to a concentration too low to be measured reliably. This limit is in the neighborhood of 60,000 years, which doesn't get you anywhere near the ages of the early hominid fossils you refer to as the "fossils from Africa". When we get back to the days of the australopithecines and very early homo, dating consists mainly of establishing the age of the stratum in which the fossils lie, and there are several ways of doing this. If you want to try to shoot holes in dating techniques that are valid for times in the millions of years ago, you need to look into such things as uranium-lead, potassium-argon, fisson-track, paleomagnetism and probably some methods I don't know about.
The neat thing about having multiple means of establishing geological ages is that they can be, and are, used to check each other. When several different methods give very similar ranges for the age of a stratum, it considerably increases our confidence in the validity of the measurement.
Here's a link to an explanation of carbon dating and its limits:
http://www.c14dating.com/
Since this thread will probably soon be filled with information about all of your points, I'll leave it at that and offer one bit of advice:
Judging by the content of your post, you might find it useful to devote less time to learning popular religious mythology and more time working on learning to write in an organized way. 
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 03:19:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by creation88
quote:
1. All scientists say the sun is shrinking, ver very very slowly but it is. If the earth is some 70 billion years old then the sun would have been HUGE! Therfore the earth burns up, and none of us are here.
First of all, the earth isn't 70 billion years, in fact, as it seems, nothing is 70 billion years. The latest figure of the age of the universe that I've read about was 13.7 billion years.
After some quick searching, I've found that there does not seem to be any detected shrinkage of the sun:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
quote:
3. Darwin, himself said that the largest flaw in his theory, is that there are so many missing links, such as where are all the fossils of the billions of years of evolution. And all the various creatures it brought.
Every living being does not become fossilized.
quote:
4. Evolution is to efficiant, a creature decides he wants legs, poof he has legs, i need some eyes, alakazam wow i have eyes. If thats the way it has worked in the past why can't we do that now? Hey I think I need a third eye, oh no it doesn't work anymore, those stupid cells 70 billion years ago must have used up all the pixie dust.
That seems like a rather horribly distorted view of evolution, so I'm not sure what to say in return.
quote:
I could go on forever, but I am not gonna, so what im trying to say is that the so called "experts" in evolution are lieing to us all, they know it's not true they just don't want to face the cosiquences of god being the real creator.
Are you suggesting that there is a better way to explain the observations, than the theory of evolution? In what way would your God be a better explanation? Surely you have reasons to believe in God, and if so, what are those? Observations, perhaps, or experimental results. And also, I would love to hear a definition of God. For without a definition or at least some guidelines, how can we know what is God and what is not? It seems that some people turn to God as an explanation when all else fails. Or, at least, when they pretend that all else failed. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
| Edited by - Maverick on 06/26/2003 03:21:07 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 03:49:53 [Permalink]
|
Goodness gratious! Cretion88, are you home-schooled?
I guess it's pick a paragraph, so I'll do this one:
quote:
4. Evolution is to efficiant, a creature decides he wants legs, poof he has legs, i need some eyes, alakazam wow i have eyes. If thats the way it has worked in the past why can't we do that now? Hey I think I need a third eye, oh no it doesn't work anymore, those stupid cells 70 billion years ago must have used up all the pixie dust.
As stated, the earth is merely 4.5 byo, not 70, 'k? Hell, the whole freakin' universe ain't hit it's 70 bil birthday, yet.
Evolution is anything but efficent; check out your very own knees and spine. Both are sloppy design for a biped, as if they were modified from those used by a quadroped. Evolution works with wharever bits and pieces that happen to be at hand. Eyes, for example, evolved from light-sensitive cells, and they did so numerous times and in some rather odd ways. An interesting read might be on comparing the eyes of the octopus, the nautalus, and the scallop.
No alakazam to it. Just gradual change over time and natural slection. It continues today.
You have already been given the Talk Origins link. It is excellent and I'd reccommend that you check it out. Here's another or so.
On tetrapod evolution: http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3bio356/lectures/temno.html
On transitional fossils: http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/origins/comingonto.html
Some light stuff on dinosaurs: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/toc.shtml
Bats:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html
And so forth. I'll leave it to another to explain dating techniques. But if you study the links provided, you may find yourself looking it up on your own.
Ya see, this stuff isn't simply made up. All the evolutionary info we have representes a huge number of years of study by intensly dedicated people. Good luck, and enjoy the read.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 04:12:32 [Permalink]
|
Hi, Creation88, welcome to the board!
It seems somebody has lied to you about science in general and evolution in particular. I highly recommend you peruse those links provided. If you have any questions about the information in any of those links, we will be happy to help.
Keep posting, and never stop asking questions! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 04:54:24 [Permalink]
|
I'm gonna toss this link from TO in. It will better explain the African 'sculls' (Creation, you really should take more care with your writing. Remember, it is a way of expressing yourself. To make the expression firm, you must put it forth in the best way possible):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 06:17:35 [Permalink]
|
"I can give more evidence for creation"
You gave NO evidence for creation. Go and learn what evidence means. Evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creation.
and since you failed to deliver at all on your topic title
I'm not going to bother with the half-assed points you made in the rest of your thread. |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 07:07:52 [Permalink]
|
Ooo, ooo., I wanna do another paragraph!
quote:
5. And then theres the fact that, a Neanderthal, has the exact scull of a person with Downs Syndrome. It's really gonna be a shock when a coupl hundred years from now, they think they found a Neanderthal scull, then they do some DNA testing and it's just some poor kid with down syndrome from our generation. Boy will that be a slap in the face.
Here's some good dope on Neandertal:
http://www.gettysburg.edu/~jhendon/syllabi/neandertals.htm
http://www.earthsky.com/Features/Articles/neandertals.html
I and many others wonder why this country cousin of ours (it's Latin name has been changed to Homo sapiens neandertalis) went extinct. It was intelligent, a skilled tool user, and generally well suited for it's enviornment.
It most certainly did not have Down's. That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard, including a lot of Hovind's codswallop. It's even better than the nonsense being spewed a few years ago about the neandertals having rickets, to account for their skeletal features.
Consider; these were people of the Ice Ages. Down's children would not have survived for long, even with the care that the group would have given them. Would an entire race of hominids, every man, woman, and child, be afflicted with Down's, hmmm?
Who fed you all this garbage, anyway?
Anyhow, check out the links. They're pretty good.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 08:16:14 [Permalink]
|
Dammit, I'm late to the pile-on.
Creation88 wrote:quote:
Ok, where should i start,
Sigh. 14 years old, and thinks he/she knows everything. This is par for the course. I wish I were 14 again.quote:
1. All scientists say the sun is shrinking, ver very very slowly but it is. If the earth is some 70 billion years old then the sun would have been HUGE! Therfore the earth burns up, and none of us are here.
Good scientists know that you can't take 100 or so years of data and extrapolate back billions of years with it. This is why "creation scientists" who spew this sun-shrinking argument aren't good scientists.quote:
3. Darwin, himself said that the largest flaw in his theory, is that there are so many missing links, such as where are all the fossils of the billions of years of evolution. And all the various creatures it brought.
Okay, just because Darwin didn't know where the fossils were, 150 years ago, must mean that the fossils don't exist at all! Just ignore all these intervening years of digging, why don't you (along with the fact that fossilization is the exception, not the norm)?quote:
4. Evolution is to efficiant, a creature decides he wants legs, poof he has legs, i need some eyes, alakazam wow i have eyes. If thats the way it has worked in the past why can't we do that now?
Because that isn't the way it worked in the past. This point of yours is what's called a "straw man argument." You should, perhaps, opt to take a logic class in high school, if one is available to you.quote:
I could go on forever, but I am not gonna, so what im trying to say is that the so called "experts" in evolution are lieing to us all, they know it's not true they just don't want to face the cosiquences of god being the real creator.
And just what would those consequences be? A God who buries fossils in order to fool us. Who sets up physics in such a way as to make us think that the universe is billions of years old, and the Earth 4.5 billion. What a petty, mean God you believe in - one who's primary motivation appears to be to lie to us all, and for what purpose? Why would God feel a need to hide the "fact" that the Earth is only 6,000 years old with all this other stuff which makes it appear much, much older? (If the idea of God's ineffability appears in your answer, I predict you'll fail your science classes.)quote:
(How does it feel to have no answers to a 14 yr old
How does it feel to be answered?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 09:59:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
1. All scientists say the sun is shrinking, ver very very slowly but it is. If the earth is some 70 billion years old then the sun would have been HUGE! Therfore the earth burns up, and none of us are here.
No good scientists say this. Actually, based on solar physics, the sun is getting bigger (but not yet at a detectable rate).
As noted before, the sun and Earth are about 4.5 billion years old.
quote:
2. Carbon Dating has been proven inacurate many times, so the fossils found in Africa mean absolutly nothing. Other than that they found a human who either was pre-flood, or died in the flood.
Incredibly wrong. First of all, dating techniques are carefully cross checked and are proven accurate.
Second, no one uses carbon dating for fossils. Carbon dating only works for organic material no older than a few 10's of thousands of years. It does not work on fossils (inorganic) that are millions of years old. Different methods (there are many) are used for that.
quote:
3. Darwin, himself said that the largest flaw in his theory, is that there are so many missing links, such as where are all the fossils of the billions of years of evolution. And all the various creatures it brought.
It wasn't a fatal flaw. It was a new science in need of more data. Since that time, scientists have been and continue to find a ton of fossil evidence.
quote:
4. Evolution is to efficiant, a creature decides he wants legs, poof he has legs, i need some eyes, alakazam wow i have eyes. If thats the way it has worked in the past why can't we do that now? Hey I think I need a third eye, oh no it doesn't work anymore, those stupid cells 70 billion years ago must have used up all the pixie dust.
That is a completely wrong description of how evolution works. No wonder you disagree with it. Try finding out what it actually says. No individual evolves (only populations over long time frames). No species consciously directs its evolution.
quote:
5. And then theres the fact that, a Neanderthal, has the exact scull of a person with Downs Syndrome. It's really gonna be a shock when a coupl hundred years from now, they think they found a Neanderthal scull, then they do some DNA testing and it's just some poor kid with down syndrome from our generation. Boy will that be a slap in the face.
A Neandertal (yes, I spelled it correctly) does not have the same skull as someone with Downs Syndrome (or Rickets for that matter, which is what I think you meant to say).
quote:
I could go on forever, but I am not gonna, so what im trying to say is that the so called "experts" in evolution are lieing to us all,
Actually, the liars are the ones you have been listening to.
quote:
they know it's not true they just don't want to face the cosiquences of god being the real creator.
Evolution does not discount God. You only think it does. Many people accept both evolution and God...including big-name churches like the Roman Catholics.
quote:
(How does it feel to have no answers to a 14 yr old
Try again. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 11:31:41 [Permalink]
|
creationist88,
A full answer to the shrinking sun can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/sun_shrinking.html
A couple of key points:
As already mentioned the shrinking sun argument makes the fatal flaw of assuming the shrinking rate we supposedly measure today has always been the rate.
A second even more critical flaw is that the original data that this claim is based on has been discredited. In fact the data was discredited before the original study was published and thus it was never published.
Your carbon dating argument has been shown to be totally wrong and ignorant of the real techniques used to date such fossils so I do not need to respond to it anymore.
Your point on Darwin fails to acknowledge the fact that he answered his own objection. If you are going to comment on what Darwin said I suggest you read what he said instead of taking it second hand. In chapter 9 he addresses this objection to his theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html Darwin was a very thorough scientists and writer and he dedicated a whole chapter to list every possible objection to his theory he could think of (Chapter 6 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html). He then spent the rest of his book answering this objections and presenting further evidence for his theory. You quote chapter 6, but then ignore the rest of his book. And like others also have said you ignore the ever expanding fossil record we now have.
Point 4 as others have pointed our is totally ridiculous. We don't decide what genes we get, our parents give them to us. We don't decide what mutations we get, chance decides that. We don't decide how well we survive nor how many offspring we have, natural selection decides that. Please at least try to understand the basics before trying to argue your points.
Point 5 has been discredited for over 100 years now (it was rickets by the way, not down's syndrome). The majority of all Neandertal skulls and skeletons are quite healthy and show little or no signs of disease.
quote:
I could go on forever, but I am not gonna, so what im trying to say is that the so called "experts" in evolution are lieing to us all, they know it's not true they just don't want to face the cosiquences of god being the real creator. (How does it feel to have no answers to a 14 yr old
How does it feel to not have a clue as a 14 year old? How does it feel to lie about things you know little about? How does it feel to call literally thousands of researchers of all different walks of life from all parts of the world, "liars". I am sure you could go on forever, its quite easy to make stuff up. One can do it forever because it really truly requires not one ounce of real work. You can call every hard working biologists in the world a liar. Pretty amazing shit. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
