19 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseYou can't stand the truth, can you? You perfer hearing those lies
Why do you continue to quote 20th century lines? I hate to say it but we are 11 percent into the next century, its 40 years on from that era. Find something modern.
from Richard Dawkins, the self proclaimed British authority on
evolution. I'll admit he can make up some whoppers.
19 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe earth certainly appears to be slowing down. Every 18 months on average, (with some slight variation), a second is added to planetary time keeping to keep the day consistent with atomic clocks and astronomical observations. That doesn't seem to support your extreme position though, as far as I can see.
Okay let us take one point at a time. If you doubt the the earth is slowing
down look at http://novan.com/earth.htm which gives the following information from the evolutionary scientist point of view:
It is well known that the rotation of planet Earth is gradually slowing. For four and one half billion years, its entire lifetime, its rate of rotation h ...[text shortened]... et is far from empty).
Do you doubt the earth is slowing down, if so, what is your reference?
19 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe position may be a little extreme, as you point out, but the idea is
The earth certainly appears to be slowing down. Every 18 months on average, (with some slight variation), a second is added to planetary time keeping to keep the day consistent with atomic clocks and astronomical observations. That doesn't seem to support your extreme position though, as far as I can see.
to call into question the extreme position on the other side. In order
to counter the creationists arguments, they can not use calculations
base on the uniformity theory as the geologist still do when they estimate
ages. The geologist completely ignore the impact a world wide flood
could of had on dating. They might consider asteroid impacts, etc. as long
as it is not mentioned in the Holy Bible, because that would be RELIGIOUS.
Due to the data accumilated by observation, astronomers must admit
that the earth is slowing down due to various causes. But now instead
of adjusting their estimated age of the earth, they must now deal with
the impact of the increased speed of rotation of the earth as they push
its origin date back 4.5 billion years. If the earth were only a few thousand
years old there would be negligible impact. However, this is out of the
possibilities for them because they must support the theory of evolution.
Now they must waste there time reconciling these ideas by devising other
theories to account for what would have happened to a 4.5 billion year old
earth spinning much faster when it began its existence. There are so many
things that could be harmonized, except evolution, if they would adjust
the age down to about 10,000 years.
19 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere is reference for Neil Armstrong and the moon dust.
Because you have given no references to support that claim. This suggests you have something to hide. You are dishonest.
Show 6: 1969: Bob Hope's 19th Christmas abroad and the 6th year overseas during the Vietnam War included highlights from his fifteen day tour entertaining our troops in Europe and Southeast Asia. The 24,000 mile tour began with a send-off at the White House. Some of the performers with Bob Hope were Connie Stevens and astronaut Neil Armstrong, fresh from his walk on the moon! This show is one of television's all time ratings champs.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/review/144
I believe this show was were Bob Hope asked Him that question.
I guess you will have to get the DVD to hear exactly what was said.
20 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsFar, far from it. A multi-disciplinary approach to discerning the age of the earth consistently produces a figure in the region of 4.5 billion years. Anybody who claims otherwise is simply ignoring the vast majority of the evidence. The only way you can reasonably claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old is if you claim that god created it to look 4.5 billion years old, 10,000 years ago. Obviously I don't expect you take my word for it, but you might try reading from a few reputable scientific sources rather than all of those creationist sites to get a balanced view prior to making up your mind.
The position may be a little extreme, as you point out, but the idea is
to call into question the extreme position on the other side. In order
to counter the creationists arguments, they can not use calculations
base on the uniformity theory as the geologist still do when they estimate
ages. The geologist completely ignore the impact a world wide flood ...[text shortened]... could be harmonized, except evolution, if they would adjust
the age down to about 10,000 years.
Also, as I suggested before, try Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo for an ostensibly reasonable argument (more convincing than most of those you're following anyway) that humankind itself has been around for millions if not billions of years. My point here is that there are always scraps of data here and there which don't fit in with the rest - that doesn't mean that all the rest are wrong.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWhat stories hav the evolutionary scientist made up to explain why
Far, far from it. A multi-disciplinary approach to discerning the age of the earth consistently produces a figure in the region of 4.5 billion years. Anybody who claims otherwise is simply ignoring the vast majority of the evidence. The only way you can reasonably claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old is if you claim that god created it to lo ...[text shortened]... and there which don't fit in with the rest - that doesn't mean that all the rest are wrong.
the moon is not further away from the earth than it is? Based on the
known recession speed of the moon from the earth and an age of 4.5
billion years it should be much futher away than it is.
Do any evolutionary scientist disput that the present population could
not have been produced in 4,000 years starting with as few as eight
people? Take in consideration that my grandparents produced 16
children of their own and that in no record.
There is no known source of new comets coming from the kuiper belt and
the Oort cloud. Tis only a conjecture made up by evolutionary scientist
in order to keep the myth of the 4.5 Billion year old earth afloat.
All the known evidence, which I have only scratched the surface, all
points to a young earth. Everything we know can easily be explained
with a young earth. Evolution is a theory and is not known science.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsNone of those things you mentioned have anything to do with evolution. Evolution, as the name implies, deals solely with the evolution of life forms.
What stories hav the evolutionary scientist made up to explain why
the moon is not further away from the earth than it is? Based on the
known recession speed of the moon from the earth and an age of 4.5
billion years it should be much futher away than it is.
Do any evolutionary scientist disput that the present population could
not have been produced ...[text shortened]... ow can easily be explained
with a young earth. Evolution is a theory and is not known science.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsBased on the known recession speed of the moon from the earth and an age of 4.5 billion years it should be much futher away than it is. What stories hav the evolutionary scientist made up to explain why the moon is not further away from the earth than it is?
If you are going to make such an outlandish claim you really must back it up with some references. I've had no problem at all finding several reliable, peer-reviewed sources dating the origin of the moon to around 4.5 billion years ago, and I've not found any which profess puzzlement as to it's distance from the earth.
Do any evolutionary scientist disput that the present population could not have been produced in 4,000 years starting with as few as eight people? Take in consideration that my grandparents produced 16 children of their own and that in no record.
You may well be right, the present population could have been reached in just 4000 years. Again, however, you could only argue that it actually was by irrationally arguing that some kind of global conspiracy existed to create evidence of human remains and civilizations much older than that would allow.
There is no known source of new comets coming from the kuiper belt and
the Oort cloud. Tis only a conjecture made up by evolutionary scientist
in order to keep the myth of the 4.5 Billion year old earth afloat.
Balderdash. All comets originate within the Kuiper Belt and/or the Oort cloud. Furthermore, I think you'll find that cometary orbits and origins are not widely studied by 'evolutionary scientists'. Global conspiracy of all scientists is it? You're starting to sound a little unhinged here.
All the known evidence, which I have only scratched the surface, all
points to a young earth. Everything we know can easily be explained
with a young earth.
If this were really the case then the majority of geologists, archaeologists, astronomers, geneticists, and biologists (and probably a host of other scientists in other disciplines I've not mentioned) would agree with you. In fact, you have so far failed to come up with a single reputable scientist who holds your risible 'young earth' views.
Evolution is a theory and is not known science.
However many times you repeat this nonsensical mantra you will not make it true. I refer you to my earlier post. Evolution, precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next is an incontrovertible, verified fact.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by rwingettAll evolutionists admit that for everything to have evolved form a
None of those things you mentioned have anything to do with evolution. Evolution, as the name implies, deals solely with the evolution of life forms.
common ancestor there has to be enough time to allow for it. So
if the earth is only about 10,000 years old ther was not enough
time. That is how all the things I mentioned relates to evolution.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsthe earth is not 10000 years old
All evolutionists admit that for everything to have evolved form a
common ancestor there has to be enough time to allow for it. So
if the earth is only about 10,000 years old ther was not enough
time. That is how all the things I mentioned relates to evolution.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsOnly 10,000 years old? You really are an idiot.
All evolutionists admit that for everything to have evolved form a
common ancestor there has to be enough time to allow for it. So
if the earth is only about 10,000 years old ther was not enough
time. That is how all the things I mentioned relates to evolution.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou appear to be indoctrinated well by all the non-science writings
[b]Based on the known recession speed of the moon from the earth and an age of 4.5 billion years it should be much futher away than it is. What stories hav the evolutionary scientist made up to explain why the moon is not further away from the earth than it is?
If you are going to make such an outlandish claim you really must back it up with ...[text shortened]... a gene pool from one generation to the next[/b] is an incontrovertible, verified fact.[/b]
and theories out there. Nothing is a fact in science until it passes
the scientific methods. The main point of the scientific methods is
that to be proven a scientific fact it must be observed to occur and
must be repeatable. You are believing in conjecture as if it were fact.
I am not saying that there is a conspiracy among the scientist. Most
of them believe they are really doing science, since they have been
indoctinated through there science education to believe as they do. So
they continue to try to make everything fit into that belief system. It
is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. They have to do a
lot of work trying to pound it in there. However there are some of the
scientists that have been able to open their minds and now believe the
evidence points to a young earth.
Scientist do not know where comets have origninated from, they only
have theories, which you seem to think is the same as fact. Scientists
are beginning to see that the methods they have used to date things
sometimes produce errors. There have been samples taken that the
age was known, but the testing method produced dates for greater than
it should have. I have yet to mention all the detailed problems in dating.
As scientist learn more and more some of them now see what they were
taught and had accepted without question is turning out to be wrong. I
am sure there will be many more in the future.