|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
 Posted - 05/17/2004 : 13:39:09 [Permalink]
|
http://historical.benabraham.com/html/evolution_as_science.html
Here is some more food for thought....I'm not trying to over run you guys, but I want to show you things I find, as I'm looking for the other thing.
Guys I'm a General Contractor and am super busy....But every article I read about it talked that the oldest dead tree fossilized was not past 2000 years old. Most are stripped of bark and minus the roots.
I had a reference to the age of fossilized trees at 2000 year old at death. I posted it three times and it was the wrong one. I don't think there has ever been a detailed study of it by Creationists but I should be the first one to go and look, count rings and write my own book.
How do I go about studying that and what do you guys recommend that I do? |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
| Edited by - verlch on 05/17/2004 13:40:14 |
 |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2004 : 13:42:32 [Permalink]
|
| With millions of tree fossils, there should be some mommoth trees buried in the ground. Trees that men look at and say that was a giant sequia, and there is no need to count it because you could cut a hole in it and drive a bus through it!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2004 : 18:48:25 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
http://historical.benabraham.com/html/evolution_as_science.html
And here's what's wrong with it:Just as Creationism is a philosophy (i.e. religion), so also is Evolutionism. Neither one is observable or repeatable, so both theories are outside the domain of what is strictly called science, and are in the domain of philosophy. To the questions, "Were you there when it happened?" or "Can you repeat (verify) it in a lab?" we must answer "no". To both questions, we can answer "yes." The idea that we cannot verify evolution in the lab, or that we cannot see it happening right now in the wild, are both lies, verlch. Here's another set of two lies from that resource:The high priest of evolution, Carl Sagan has said, "To believe that organisms arose spontaneously on the earth, is a statement of faith rather than of demonstrable scientific fact." It's two lies because Sagan was an astronomer, and not a "high priest" of anything, and also because Sagan is talking about abiogenesis, and not evolution. High-profile creationists lie all the time by conflating the two disciplines, but they are vastly different sciences. Do you, as a Christian, endorse the practice of lying in order to get more people to turn to Jesus? What would Jesus do in such a situation?
That resource also talks about "kinds," but no creationist has ever defined "kind" in such a way that withstands scientific scrutiny and which meets their definition of seeing evolutionary variation only within a "kind."
More lies:Astronomer and cosmologist Fred Hoyle said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing a tornado could sweep though a junkyard filled with airplane parts and form a Boeing-747. He goes on, "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it." It's big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet or on another, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." [sic] Evolution cannot be compared to a completely random process, since it works through physical laws. This also, once again, conflates evolution with abiogenesis.
I could go on all night. I'll stop now.
The main point of that article appears to be the assertion that evolutionary theory stands upon nothing but guesswork, and thus is more philosophical than scientific. An unfortunate complication is that all sciences are based upon a couple of philosophical assumptions which cannot be proven. Evolution requires no more or less "faith" than any other science.
If you, like the author(s) of that article, reject evolution because it is a "religion," then you should treat fairly every other science, and reject them, too. Electron theory probably says something which could be construed as Satanic or otherwise anti-Bible, so you should eschew the use of your computer. And don't drive anywhere, since your car is designed using scientific (faith-based) principles in the fields of materials and aerodynamics which may conflict with yours. Etc.quote:
Here's some more food for thought....I'm not trying to over run you guys, but I want to show you things I find, as I'm looking for the other thing.
For every thing you find, you can probably easily find the "evolutionist" response to it at http://www.talkorigins.org This latest article has nothing new in it, that I can see, just the same old creationist lies and quote-mining. Quote-mining isn't science.
And as Ricky said: where's the answer to my question? It doesn't matter if your memory is correct, and the oldest fossilized tree known was precisely 1,656 years old when it died (since 2,000 years would be a problem for the Bible). Why do you think we should be able to find older trees than that? Why? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2004 : 19:41:27 [Permalink]
|
Okaaay........ Hm. where to start?
The Theory of Evolution is the bedrock of the biological sciences. These are studied by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of professional people who have dedicated their lives to uncovering emperical knowledge of our natural world. Therefore, this following is ridiculous:
quote:
Copied from: ricthuse (1cust237.tnt1.marion.oh.da.uu.net)
Subject: Is Evolution Science or Philosophy (i.e. Religion)?
Date: December 25, 2003.
Just as Creationism is a philosophy (i.e. religion), so also is Evolutionism. Neither one is observable or repeatable, so both theories are outside the domain of what is strictly called science, and are in the domain of philosophy. To the questions, "Were you there when it happened?" or "Can you repeat (verify) it in a lab?" we must answer "no". Where we end up on the Creation/Evolution question will involve faith. (See speech below.)
We can, though, look at the evidence nature provides us, and see which theory best predicts what we find - in order to decide which is the more reasonable faith. For example: The Creation Model predicts we will find gaps between the originally created kinds in the fossil record. The Evolution Model, on the other hand, predicts we will find transitional forms in the fossil record. Darwin didn't have any, but he could point to the sparse fossil library of his time, and say that the transitional fossils were still in the ground and would be found eventually. It's been about 150 years and we now have a huge fossil library. Have any transitional forms been found? (See speech below.)
The ToE is not a faith nor is it a philosophy. It is the tested and rigorusly reviewed findings that resulted from exhaustive study. It is tested every day and has yet to fail. The above quote from your site is utter nonsense mixed with some outright falsehoods. I will be generous and think that the authors knew no better.
Want transitional fossils? We have scads of them. even a big dummy like me can come up with some. And if asked, I will.
Damn, but wouldn't I like to find the Devonian Bunny! There were no mammals in the Devonian, you know. If I found a fossil of that bunny, amid fossils of Dimetrodon, Ithyostega, et al,, I would hurl the ToE into the dumpster and all of the 'ologists would wonder where the hell they went wrong.
I would be internationally famous. I would earn a fortune on the lecture circute, boring vast adueinces to distraction and making them like it, and I could pick up my Nobel at my leasure. Hell, I could have the Nobel guys just drop it off at my door. For that bunny, they'd do it, too.
You see, refuting the ToE is the greatest prize biological science has to offer. But I don't see it being captured any time soon. all evidence, and there are mountains of it, demonstrates that it is correct.
A brief word on scientific theories: they are never proven. They are simply a repository of of evidence in their support. The ToE has such a preponderence of evidence that for all practical purposes, it is a stone fact. Indeed, due to the evidence, it is considered both a theory and a fact, and that's not a contradiction at all.
'K. I'm again going to direct you to Talk Origins. This site is a collection of articles and papers, all peer reviewed (and that rewiew is as cut-throat as any you'll find, anywhere) and accurate to date. And they link to Creationist sites, giving the devil his due. Don't try to take it in all at once -- it can't be done. Just browse it and study what catches your interest; ain't no big yank. Then think about it and read a little more. I myself visit often and never fail to learn a little each time. Knowledge is all.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2004 : 21:15:13 [Permalink]
|
And as Ricky said: where's the answer to my question? It doesn't matter if your memory is correct, and the oldest fossilized tree known was precisely 1,656 years old when it died (since 2,000 years would be a problem for the Bible). Why do you think we should be able to find older trees than that? Why?
Because you do not know how long the garden of eden was there. Or if God created the trees and left as mature adults or as seedlings.
The oldest petrified tree I have read about, like I said before, was two-thousand years old, when it died....
You have hundreds of millions of years....and you have plenty of trees over 3000 years. Say only 3% of 100 million trees are alive each year that age over 3000 years, that is 3 million. In 100 million years that is 300,000,000 trees that lived over 3000 years and should be easily fossilized on the planet. Ones striped of back and root system. That is 300,000,000 chances in 100,000,000 years for one to fossilize in the ground. And only 3 billion years later we don't have a singe huge tree that ages over 3,500 years? Come on boys, what are the chances of that? There should be one huge tree in 1 billion years that could have squeaked out a longer existance than 3,500 years!!!!
If trees evoved 1 billion years ago that means you have 3 billion chances at 3% ot trees over 3,500 years to have one fossilized with the rest of the Noianich floods fossilized trees.
I think you fellas do not like the idea of God being able to create life. And you attempt to explain away the facts and champion life from nothing. Ignoring strange facts that do not fit with your theories and dismissing them as lies and not blinking to take a look, that is not true science.... |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2004 : 21:41:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Well with all of the millions of trees petrifed and billions of years that have passed, in your 'scientific' minds. There should be a least one really, really old fossilized tree, buried deep in the earth. Thus proving your billion year ideals! Without it you are just another 'missing link.'
Verlch, when are you going to start typing something original? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2004 : 22:46:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
If trees evoved 1 billion years ago that means you have 3 billion chances at 3% ot trees over 3,500 years to have one fossilized with the rest of the Noianich floods fossilized trees.
You don't spend much time reading our posts do you, Verlch?
Filthy wrote the other day that trees didn't evolve 1 billon years ago. Your mind reminds me of my teflon frying pan. Not much sticks to it, and stay there...
Besides, trees weren't suddenly there either (400 million years ago). There was a large bush. Then the large bush had a slightly larger offspring. Then the slightly larger bush had en even larger offspring. After a quite a few generations we had a HUGE bush. At this point we might agree that the huge bush could be called a very small tree. Trees that just recently evolved wouldn't have had any time evolving longevity, so you shouldn't expect to find any 3000+ years old trees. I understand why you would think you should (if you agreed to the assumption of an old earth), but that has to do with the predictability of your Christian Creationist indoctrination.
quote:
I think you fellas do not like the idea of God being able to create life.
I'm currently indifferent to the idea of a God being able to create life. Maybe He did, maybe He didn't. Scientific research is being conducted to see if it is possible that life came into being by itself.
quote:
And you attempt to explain away the facts and champion life from nothing.
Sigh...
We do not "explain away" any facts. We are calling them as we find them. Sometimes we do not agree what our findings means, but that is part of being human.
quote:
Ignoring strange facts that do not fit with your theories and dismissing them as lies and not blinking to take a look, that is not true science....
Please tell us what those strange facts are, (damn, I feel like a broken record running the same grove again and again. You know, the vinyl type that was used before digital media) Then READ AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND our responses. Your track record thus far, Verlch, show us that you do not even want to understand why we think differently from you.
How many times do we have to tell you? What you know about biological evolution is mostly Creationist Misinformation. We can see that clearly from your posts. The examples you give of "flaws in evolutionary theory" are not examples from the evolutionary theories that we know. They are distortions and misinterpretations and lies about what is being taught at higher institutions.
But every time we try to point out that your favourite Creationist is ignorant of the real facts, or is intentionally lying to you, you just shut your ears, like a 4 year old child who does not want to hear what it's being told. By the way, now I realize what the Bible means when it says we should have faith like small children.
How do we reach you? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2004 : 22:55:16 [Permalink]
|
Verlch, when are you going to explain this apparent obsession with the age of a fossilized (whatever) when it died?
What is the relevance of that to the amount of time that's passed since the organism died?
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2004 : 23:19:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
Verlch, when are you going to explain this apparent obsession with the age of a fossilized (whatever) when it died?
What is the relevance of that to the amount of time that's passed since the organism died?
Ok so you have 400 million years to evole to a Giant tree in Califorinia. You mean to tell me that only in the last 3000 years did some lucky tree live to be 3500 years old!!! I'm saying that the tree rings tell volumes and they flow with Creation from God. I give you facts, and you say well that doesn't tell me anything.
What is the purpose of trying to explain life without a God? Other than the fact that you believe His laws are way too tough to follow. I think evolution leads people away from the true maker of the universe, bottom line. That is why you have so many people attacking you.
You tell Men and Women that the come from nothing. They are void of any accountabilty in thier lives. The bible has clear outlines as to how women should treat the husband. I for one have had a terrible time with married life, twice, with woman that believed in evolution. Like wives be submissive to the husband. There are plenty of things. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2004 : 23:21:01 [Permalink]
|
| Are you suggesting that there were trees 3 billion years ago, on Earth? |
"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 |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2004 : 23:28:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Ok so you have 400 million years to evole to a Giant tree in Califorinia. You mean to tell me that only in the last 3000 years did some lucky tree live to be 3500 years old!!! I'm saying that the tree rings tell volumes and they flow with Creation from God. I give you facts, and you say well that doesn't tell me anything.
Are you saying that the creation from God is a fact? What evidence can you show us that you undoubtedly have?
quote:
What is the purpose of trying to explain life without a God?
Personally, I believe that we try to explain and understand the world around us for many reasons, one is because we're curious.
quote:
Other than the fact that you believe His laws are way too tough to follow. I think evolution leads people away from the true maker of the universe, bottom line. That is why you have so many people attacking you.
If they are tough to follow it's probably because it's tough to find evidence supporting the idea that the universe was created and in the way the Bible tells us.
quote:
You tell Men and Women that the come from nothing. They are void of any accountabilty in thier lives.
Why would a more accurate description of the world around us make us come to that conclusion? And even if it did, should we just throw away the more accurate theories?
quote:
The bible has clear outlines as to how women should treat the husband.
And women in general, in fact. And it's not very civilized advices you get from it.
quote:
I for one have had a terrible time with married life, twice, with woman that believed in evolution. Like wives be submissive to the husband. There are plenty of things.
What does evolution have to do with your wives being women enough not to be submissive to you? Absolutely nothing. |
"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 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2004 : 03:37:40 [Permalink]
|
Damn verlch, WHAT IS IT WITH YOU AND THESE FUCKING TREES?!
Brislecone pines, alive today and reliably counted at some 4,500 years old, are not giants. They are small and scraggly, and look half dead. They are found in a pretty much inhospitable reagon. And all it means is that there are some pretty old, ugly trees, way up on a mountain, that nobody much gives a rat's ass about beyond curiosity and checking some dating techniques.
Further, so what if some god or other, in a flight of boozy whimsy did create everything? It would not change the empirical evidence in the least. The ToE would still stand and radiometric dating would still nicely and consisely tell us the ages of features of the earth.
Like the Flood, the Garden of Eden myth is always good for a chuckle. I'll not bother to ask for evidence of it's former existance because I've learned that all I'll get from it is more hand-waving and gibberish about old, stone trees. Which signifies exactly NOTHING.
You don't open links. You scarcly read what others write. You answer all argument with unsupported blather. No problem, really; you are far from the first Creationist we've observed these habits in.
I am a patient man; indeed I've been described as having the patience of a corpse. But you try me, verlch, I swear you do. Now pull your head out of whatever fantasy realm you've got it stuck in and open a few links; read a few posts. INFORM YOURSELF!!!
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2004 : 09:39:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
I give you facts, and you say well that doesn't tell me anything.
No, you give us what you believe is the facts, but what you really have is some kind of misinterpretation (intentional or not) of what the facts are.
quote:
What is the purpose of trying to explain life without a God?
What is the purpose of explaining anything, with or without God?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2004 : 10:57:18 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
Because you do not know how long the garden of eden was there. Or if God created the trees and left as mature adults or as seedlings.
That is why you think we should be able to find ancient fossilized trees? That's no answer at all.quote:
You have hundreds of millions of years....and you have plenty of trees over 3000 years. Say only 3% of 100 million trees are alive each year that age over 3000 years, that is 3 million. In 100 million years that is 300,000,000 trees that lived over 3000 years and should be easily fossilized on the planet.
Okay, there is the big problem. Why is it that you think trees "should be easily fossilized?" The dead trees in my backyard won't fossilize. They are in the process of rotting and falling to pieces, because, like most trees, they don't exist within a floodplain or near a volcano or in any sort of region which would be conducive to burial.
I would estimate that the actual chances for any individual tree picked at random on the face of the Earth to be fossilized are less than one in a billion.quote:
Ones striped of back and root system. That is 300,000,000 chances in 100,000,000 years for one to fossilize in the ground. And only 3 billion years later we don't have a singe huge tree that ages over 3,500 years? Come on boys, what are the chances of that?
You tell us. You appear to think that the chances are quite large, so I expect you've run the calculations. Let's have the answer.quote:
There should be one huge tree in 1 billion years that could have squeaked out a longer existance than 3,500 years!!!!
Once again, you are using the word "should" without supporting your position.quote:
If trees evoved 1 billion years ago that means you have 3 billion chances at 3% ot trees over 3,500 years to have one fossilized with the rest of the Noianich floods fossilized trees.
Oh, well, if the Flood happened, there should indeed be lots of fossilized trees all over the world. I don't believe that the Flood happened, though, and I point to the lack of fossilized trees globally as evidence that such a global flood did not occur. Thank you.quote:
I think you fellas do not like the idea of God being able to create life.
I don't care how life was created, we're talking about the existence of a Flood just 4,000-someodd years ago. The two don't have much to do with one another.quote:
And you attempt to explain away the facts and champion life from nothing.
I challenge you to list a single fact which has been "explained away" in this thread. And no, I don't "champion life from nothing," since that is was the Bible claimed happened, more or less (first there was nothing, and then God did his tricks and - poof - living stuff). Please remember which side of the argument you are on, here.quote:
Ignoring strange facts that do not fit with your theories and dismissing them as lies and not blinking to take a look, that is not true science....
I challenge you to present a single "strange fact" which has been ignored in this thread, or a single fact which has been dismissed as a lie. It is a fact that we can test evolutionary theory in the lab. It is a fact that evolutionary theory does not make claims about the origins of life, and it is a fact that many creationists lie when they claim evolution does have something to do with the origins of life.quote:
Ok so you have 400 million years to evole to a Giant tree in Califorinia. You mean to tell me that only in the last 3000 years did some lucky tree live to be 3500 years old!!!
No, we're telling you that only in the last few decades do we have evidence that any tree can live to be 4,500 years old. We're telling you that in the past, there could have been 10,000-year-old trees, but they either didn't fossilize or we haven't found them yet.quote:
I'm saying that the tree rings tell volumes and they flow with Creation from God. I give you facts, and you say well that doesn't tell me anything.
Right, because the age of a tree when it died doesn't matter when discussing the age of the Earth.quote:
What is the purpose of trying to explain life without a God?
It's more satisfying than looking at a tree and saying "Goddidit," since that's a possible answer to every question.quote:
Other than the fact that you believe His laws are way too tough to follow.
Ah, and now we get into personal attacks. I see. Because you don't like the answers given, you will now start to simply insult us. God's laws aren't difficult to follow at all. That's another lie you've been taught in order to make you feel like belief in God is a big accomplishment.
In reality, believing in God is the easy way out of a philosophical jam. The question, "where do we come from?" is all wrapped up with a nice bow for you in a 2,000-year-old book, but it's not for me. I've got questions upon questions, and every year, researchers find even more questions, on that one subject alone. Living with such uncertainty is what is difficult.
Note also that there are plenty of evolutionary scientists who also believe in God. Look up the name "Kenneth Miller," if I remember correctly. These people also know where they come from, and where they're going, but they study evolution to find out how God made His Creation. Not whether God created everything, but how He did it. They believe, you see, that evolution is also a creation of God. You appear |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
