Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 102
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    No, there are evidence that this planet is not 3.8 billion years old. There are evidence that the dating technology used may be faulty as there are variations in the datings used by different technologies. Evidence of a young earth:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...or-young-world
    Answers In Genesis? What a joke. Those folks don't know the first thing about science. I challenge you to find one scientist who has published his evidence that the earth is less than a billion years old in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL. I seriously doubt you will find one because it would not pass peer review. But maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read all the science journals. So go find one. Just one. Come on Cheow - this is a challenge. Let's see if you can do it. Don't quote a creationist site. You have to find a real scientist who gives solid evidence that the earth is less than one billion years old in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I dare ya!

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    2) Do you believe this basic timeline is correct in any way at all?
    It's a human imagination same as people imagining cars evolved from bicyce and motorcycles. I could easily give a timeline of how cars evolve from the invention of wheels, carts, chariots, carriages etc.
    You didn't understand my question. I didn't ask if you believed in evolution. I am asking if you believe in the EVIDENCE for evolution. Specifically, the evidence of the history of life on this planet that has been collected by thousands upon thousands of scientists and published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

    If you reject all the EVIDENCE that is found in REALITY then you are rejecting reality itself. And this makes all your appeals to science utterly absurd since you reject all science.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    And how do you account for life that remains unchanged for millions of years such as the horse shoe crab which shows that there is no such thing as less complex life evolving to more complex life. How do you explain the sudden change from one complex life to another such as from dinosaurs to mammals. The only explanation is that someone or something intelligent created them by altering their DNAs.
    You are confused again Cheow. The fact that some forms are stable over long periods of time does not contradict evolution. Do you understand why? If not, then ask and I will explain. Or you can look it up yourself.

    Who said the emergence of mammals was "sudden"? What do you mean by sudden? If you reject the 3.8 billion year timeline accepted by essentially all modern scientists, then what timeline are you using? Six thousand years? Do you agree that would be ridiculous?

    So what is your estimate of the age of the earth and the timeline of life? Please share it with us so we can get free from all the delusions we learned in our science classes.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    I have already answered your question... because they have already been brainwashed by the false theory of evolution during their school education.

    I have already answered your question please answer mine:
    If the theory of evolution is so good, why do many evolutionists turn creationists?
    The other question which I wanted you to answer is :
    Is it possible to create new life forms by tweaking the DNA codes? This is in reference to my thread on the XNA.

    http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...7153#post47153

    God Blessed.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Why did those scientists think their experiment was good evidence for their conclusion?

    And why do other scientists agree with them?
    I have already answered your question... because they have already been brainwashed by the false theory of evolution during their school education.
    Hi Cheow,

    I think you misunderstood the intent of my question. I was not asking you to speculate about the psychological or emotional motivation of the scientists. It doesn't matter if they did their experiment because they wanted to become famous evolutionists, or because they hated God, or because they were brainwashed. I asked you those questions because I wanted to know if you had any understanding about evolution at all. So please answer the questions. Let me reword them so you can understand.

    What was the conclusion stated in the video?

    What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

    Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?

    Thanks,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hi Cheow,

    I think you misunderstood the intent of my question. I was not asking you to speculate about the psychological or emotional motivation of the scientists. It doesn't matter if they did their experiment because they wanted to become famous evolutionists, or because they hated God, or because they were brainwashed. I asked you those questions because I wanted to know if you had any understanding about evolution at all. So please answer the questions. Let me reword them so you can understand.

    What was the conclusion stated in the video?

    What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

    Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?

    Thanks,

    Richard
    I have already answered your question, so please have answer mine. Obviously, you are evading my questions. Here are the questions again:

    If the theory of evolution is so good, why do many evolutionists turn creationists?

    The other question which I wanted you to answer is :
    Is it possible to create new life forms by tweaking the DNA codes? This is in reference to my thread on the XNA.


    God Bless.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    I have already answered your question, so please have answer mine.
    Come on Cheow, don't pretend to be an idiot. We both know you did not answer my questions. Here they are again:

    What was the conclusion stated in the video?

    What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

    Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Come on Cheow, don't pretend to be an idiot. We both know you did not answer my questions. Here they are again:

    What was the conclusion stated in the video?
    There is no concrete proof of evolution.

    What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?
    These are not proofs but assumptions.

    Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?
    What evidence? just assumptions based on weak evidences.

    I have already answered your questions. Now please answer mine:

    1. If the theory of evolution is so good, why do many evolutionists turn creationists?

    2. Is it possible to create new life forms by tweaking the DNA codes? This is in reference to my thread on the XNA.

    If you are not willing to answer mine and is trying to evade, then the interaction is closed. Thank you.


    God Bless.
    Last edited by CWH; 07-09-2012 at 08:25 PM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    What was the conclusion stated in the video?
    There is no concrete proof of evolution.
    False. That is not the conclusion stated in the video.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?
    These are not proofs but assumptions.
    Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?
    What evidence? just assumptions based on weak evidences.

    I have already answered your questions. Now please answer mine:
    OK - so you are admitting that you did not understand a word of that video.

    Thanks. It helps explain how folks could be creationists in spite of all the evidence that proves they are wrong. They simply don't understand what they are talking about. They are utterly, totally, and completely ignorant of the most basic facts of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    1. If the theory of evolution is so good, why do many evolutionists turn creationists?
    Your question is based on a false assumption. There are not "many evolutionists" who "turn creationists." Indeed, I don't know if there is even one!

    I will answer your question if you can find five evolutionary scientists who have been published in peer reviewed journals and who later converted to creationism. That should be very easy if there are "many evolutionists" who have converted since there are thousands upon thousands of evolutionary scientists.

    And please be true to your word. Don't list someone who started off as a creationist. You must list evolutionary scientists who were NOT creationist and then converted.

    Happy hunting!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Ricahrd
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    I think you may have missed an essential detail in my comment. I said that you have to "accept all the assumptions that the scientists used to come to those results." You don't have to accept all the assumptions that scientists didn't use to come to the conclusion you cited. They could have all sorts of assumptions that you have good reason to reject. That's fine. But if you accept one of their conclusions, you are implicitly accepting ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS that they used to come to that result. Do you understand this point?

    Now you are correct that they might be able to come to the same conclusions with a different set of assumptions, but they didn't do that so your point is moot. My point stands. If you deny the assumptions used to come to a conclusion, you can not use the conclusion. Simple as that.
    OK. I must look at all the assumptions made. Since I do not know what all the asumptions are, you will have to give me a list of the assumptions made and what each assumption states. I will respond to each statement explaining the the respective assumption.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I very much like the idea of collaborating in the hopes of coming to a true estimation of reality. But there is a huge mountain of unfounded concepts that you take for granted which stands in our way. That's why I asked about the time line of life on this planet. That timeline is based o the collected results of the entire edifice of scientific evidence. It is "rock solid" if you know what I mean. Scientific consilience gives us great certainty of the general picture. Sure, there are almost certainly minor points here or there that will need to be refined, but the idea of a young earth is on the level of a "flat earth." Do you question that the earth is a globe? Of course not. Why not? Because of the sum of the scientific evidence. The same goes for the "old earth."
    I have already stated in other threads that I can accept that the earth is very old. This might account for fossilized remains appearing old if they ate old dirt. If the dirt was 13 billion years old or 3 billion years old that would date the fossils at that age even though they are younger. My speculations allowed for creation over a very long timeline maybe with the exeption of man who was created quickly.

    Once again I will have to be presented with all the assumptions made in presenting the conclusion for the age of plants and animals before agreeing dates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Yes, that topic seems very interesting indeed. I'll research more and report back as time permits.
    No rush. Take all the time you need.


    David

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Ricahrd

    OK. I must look at all the assumptions made. Since I do not know what all the asumptions are, you will have to give me a list of the assumptions made and what each assumption states. I will respond to each statement explaining the the respective assumption.
    Good afternoon my friend!

    The "list of assumptions" is simply the entire body of currently accepted scientific facts and theories that all scientists use when forming their conclusions. If there is any assumption that is not generally accepted, they always take note of it and carefully try to justify its use. I think this should be clear if we review my comment in post #19 from whence our discussion descended:
    The reason I asked about your opinion of the basic timeline of the history of life on this planet was to find out if we shared any common understanding of science. It is very difficult to discuss science with creationists because they use scientific results inconsistently. When a conclusion suits the creationist argument, they cite it as if it were an indisputable scientific fact. When it contradicts creationism, they simply reject it making up whatever reasons are necessary. This is illogical because the conclusions that they accepted are based on the same set of assumptions that they reject! It is extremely confusing to talk to a creationist because I can never depend upon their acceptance of the facts that they used in coming to their conclusions!

    The creationist strategy fails to understand the consilience of science - the unity of scientific knowledge. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose which conclusions you accept and which you don't. When you question the dates you are not merely questioning the dates, you are questioning all the assumptions (which are based on the best scientific facts available) that went into making those conclusions. In effect, you are rejecting the entire body of scientific knowledge. The creationist arguments are therefore self-refuting.
    When creationists cite a scientific result that supposedly supports creationism contrary to the generally accepted results of the rest of science, they are obviously wrong about something! Do you understand my point? If not, please ask and I will explain more.

    Also, you might want to ask yourself why the creationist arguments have been rejected by essentially all modern scientists. There's a reason for that you know. If creationist arguments had any scientific merit they could get publish in scientific journals. I am not even a working scientists but I can debunk 95% of all creationist arguments just by looking at them because they are generally abysmal.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I have already stated in other threads that I can accept that the earth is very old. This might account for fossilized remains appearing old if they ate old dirt. If the dirt was 13 billion years old or 3 billion years old that would date the fossils at that age even though they are younger. My speculations allowed for creation over a very long timeline maybe with the exeption of man who was created quickly.
    It is good that we agree that the earth is old. But what age range do you accept? Do you think it is possible that the earth is as little as a 100,000 years old? A million? A billion? A simple statement of your best estimate would be helpful. And reasons why you reject the accepted age of 4.5 billion years would be even more helpful since it is based on a number of independent lines of evidence (which is much more difficult to reject).

    And I would really like to know if you believe that the fossils are stratified, with simpler forms found in older rocks. Evolution could be falsified in a heartbeat if someone found rabbits in the Jurassic, you know? Remember the Cambrian explosion that creationists like to say proves design because of the many forms that appeared suddenly? Well, you don't see any rabbits down there, do ya? Why not? This proves the creationist assumption that all animals were created and lived at the same time is absolutely false. (As an aside, this shows that creationists must accept the old earth assumptions when they site any scientific conclusions about the Cambrian age.)

    The fact that fossils are stratified is evidence of evolution.

    I have no idea what you mean by the dinosaurs "eating old dirt" or how this could affect the age of their fossils. It would be best if we clarified our understanding of established science before making any speculations like that.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    When creationists cite a scientific result that supposedly supports creationism contrary to the generally accepted results of the rest of science, they are obviously wrong about something! Do you understand my point? If not, please ask and I will explain more.

    It is good that we agree that the earth is old. But what age range do you accept? Do you think it is possible that the earth is as little as a 100,000 years old? A million? A billion? A simple statement of your best estimate would be helpful. And reasons why you reject the accepted age of 4.5 billion years would be even more helpful since it is based on a number of independent lines of evidence (which is much more difficult to reject)
    I would perfer not to quote scientific results in support of Creation. There is the possibility that science has not got all the facts and there are facts that they are unaware of or that the rate of change is not linear or as predictable as they would have us believe. I shall go along with the age of the earth being millions of years old to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And I would really like to know if you believe that the fossils are stratified, with simpler forms found in older rocks. Evolution could be falsified in a heartbeat if someone found rabbits in the Jurassic, you know? Remember the Cambrian explosion that creationists like to say proves design because of the many forms that appeared suddenly? Well, you don't see any rabbits down there, do ya? Why not? This proves the creationist assumption that all animals were created and lived at the same time is absolutely false. (As an aside, this shows that creationists must accept the old earth assumptions when they site any scientific conclusions about the Cambrian age.)

    The fact that fossils are stratified is evidence of evolution.
    I might if it were not for the fact that the Great Flood can be seen to have caused the stratification. Water sloshing back and forward for up to a year would give rise to massive stratification of the mud layers. Experiment have been done to show this on a small scale. You only have to see what one Tsunami does to understand what happens when the equivalent of a Tsunami took place for up to weeks and months while the waters overflowed the earth. Stratification has it problems like the following, which you will have an explanation for.
    Petrified Vertical Trees:
    Name:  tracks-petrified-tree_opt.jpg
Views: 54
Size:  85.6 KB
    This is a fossil tree is supposedly extending through millions of years of strata. Think about that. Does that make sense.
    How long does it take to form sedimentary layers? Charles Officer is a research professor at Dartmouth. In his 1996 book, The Great Dinosaur Extinction Mystery, he says, "...a rate of one centimeter per 1000 years is typical," p.56. But just look and think about this 30 foot fossil tree. It is one of hundreds found near Cookville, TN in the Kettles coal mines which derived their name from the shape of the lower portion of these fossil trees. This tree begins in one coal seam, protrudes upward through numerous layers and finally into another layer of coal.

    Think about that. What would happen to the top of the tree in the thousands of years necessary to cover it at the rate postulated by Officer. Derek Ager, one of the world’s best known statigraphers, addresses this challenge, acknowledging "...standing trees up to 10 m high in the Lancashire coalfield of north-west England. ...Obviously sedimentation had to be very rapid to bury a tree in a standing position before it rotted and fell down. ...Standing trees are known at many levels and in many parts of the world. ...we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and that at other times there were long breaks in the sedimentation, though it looks uniform and continuous," The New Catastrophism, 1993, p.49.

    In spite of how it looks, long periods of time are still claimed, "shoehorned" between the layers, where there is no evidence. Now, which is really better science...imaginative explanations about why things are not as they appear to be, or a determination to follow the implications of what we actually see?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I have no idea what you mean by the dinosaurs "eating old dirt" or how this could affect the age of their fossils. It would be best if we clarified our understanding of established science before making any speculations like that.
    This is easy to understand. If the age of some dirt(food) contains isotopes by which the age of the dirt is calculated, then when that dirt is digested and becomes part of the living plant or animal that is later fossilized, the fossil is dated according to the age of the isotope. This means that a yound fossil could be dated as old.

    All the best,

    David

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •