Dinosaurs and adam and eve...
- Started
- Last post
- 133 Responses
- ********0
The whole point is they don't operate with reason, but they use reasons terminology. It's a religious version of Orwell's Newspeak. Trying to make a logic argument to convice anybody that believes Creationism or ID is a vast waste of precious breath. Unlike real science , they have the answer they want ahead of time and pick and choose evidence to support it. The Bible has ALL the answers. It is IMPOSSIBLE to find anything in nature to refute it. Unlike the way actual science works where we actual disprove theories based on new evidence.
These religious fanatics can't even misunderstand the basic concept og hypothesis/theory how are they gonna do anything else.
- discipler0
Tick, you might have a point if that were even remotely the case. No matter how good your methodology is, you will draw the wrong conclusions if your foundation is wrong.
Why not compare the foundational beliefs between the Bible and Evolution:
How did time begin?
Bible: God created it.
Evolution: ‘Nothing’ created from nothing.‘Nothing’ violates the principle of causality that all science is derived. It says that all things that have a beginning have a cause. ‘Nothing’ violates this law where God doesn’t. The Bible has a better foundation.
Where did matter come from?
Bible: God created it.
Evolution: Nothing created a singularity from nothing and it expanded.Once again ‘nothing’ violates the principle of causality. This is violation of scientific law whereas God wouldn’t be.
What is the age of the universe?
Bible: From earth standard time approximately 6 thousand years.
Evolution: 8-24 billion years depending on the latest Hubble constant and distant starlight travel.The Bible uses an eyewitness account of the only One who was present during Creation who stated in the Bible [E.g., Isa. 40:22, Ps. 104:2, etc.] that the rate of expansion of the universe has not been constant (Hubble constant has changed).
The evolutionists use guesses based on distant starlight passing though the universe as constant time and assume the universe expands at a constant rate (Hubble constant). We know the scientific measuring of the Hubble constant has had major problems. Also, we know from Einstein that time is not constant throughout the universe. It changes via gravitational and velocity time dilation. Evolutionists have a horribly unscientific approach.
How do you explain the fossil record?
Bible: The Flood of Noah caused geologic layers of sediment rapidly and caused the formation of many fossils about 4500 years ago.
Evolution: The fossils were formed by slow gradual processes over millions of years. Layers often represent millions of years.
We know that fossils only form from a rapid burial and this process is easily testable and has been verified. Any slow, gradual process ever tested has resulted in the decay of a life form instead of its fossilization. Anyone who has ever been to a flood area can see layers of sediment. The layers are better explained by the rapid flood as opposed to millions of years. The deeper layers simply settled from the flood water earlier.
According to evolution there should be hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils that easily show the change from one kind of life form to another. What we have found is the opposite. Many fossilized life forms are very close to the same as the modern kinds. There are only a few ‘highly questionable’ transitions that evolutionists themselves disagree about their transitional status. Every alleged human ancestor has been debunked as either fraud or a non-transition.
What about dating methods?
Bible: Dating is best done by written account of eyewitnesses as recorded in the Bible.
Evolution: Dating should be done by uniformitarian methods (only some of them).Uniformitarian methods make the assumption that the rate we measure now has always been the same. It also makes the assumption that that weathering effects did not affect the sample. It also makes the assumption that the initial conditions are known.
Problems with this is that we know from experimentation the rate does change due to weathering. We also know that no one knows the initial amount. We also know that many uniformitarian dating methods yield a young earth (Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Russell Humphreys). The few methods used for long ages (radiometric) have been proven to be wrong over and over again. Why, scientifically, would anyone keep using them?
Is it easier to get the age of book in a library by looking when it says it was printed or taking a sample from the book and subjecting it to uniformitarian dating? An eyewitness account of the Bible is still the best, and most scientific method for arriving at an age.
Do the observations in living things fit according to evolution or the Bible?
Bible: Living things are under a curse and thus should not get better over time. They should be subjected to natural selection that causes a filtering of traits (loss of information) and mutations that cause defective traits in the DNA (loss of information and possibly in an extremely rare instant maybe an increase of information).
Evolution: There should be millions of mutations that cause new previously non-existent traits to build up on the DNA strand and those traits should be naturally selected as dominant. Thus all life forms will be on their way to the next level of evolved life with better, new information.
We observe that life forms can naturally select and filter out traits (dogs that go to colder climates will eventually have only longer hair to keep warm because the ones with shorter hair will die off and the genes—alleles—for that short hair will be lost or filtered out). Mutations occur and have always been a loss of information in the genome. There has never been a single instance where a DNA strand has ever been built up with new, previously non-existent information by mutations or other means, ever. Without this, evolution cannot happen.
The video Frog to a Prince shows the world’s leading atheistic evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, unable to provide even one example of an increase in information. In a follow-up article in an Australian magazine, he failed to produce any either—there are none.
What about dinosaurs?
Bible: Dinosaurs are in the Bible.
Evolution: Dinosaurs died out over 65 million years ago.How can dinosaurs be in the Bible if they died out 65 million years ago and weren’t rediscovered until the 1800’s? Simple, men saw them and wrote about them. This means that they lived at the same time as the Bible says. There are hundreds of evidences that show that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
Intelligent Design and Creationism is not about illegitimately imposing the dictates of faith upon science, but about raising rational objections to proposed Darwinian explanations of the biological world. Simply put, the biological world does not observe what Darwin taught.
- Mimio0
There's nothing rational about assuming that a supernatural creature created all matter and life because there's currently no hard evidence to support the origins of the universe.
- discipler0
There's nothing rational about assuming that matter and the complexity of life sprang into existance from nothing. Rather, it's rational and logical to assume that an uncaused cause generated the life and matter.
- Mimio0
What scientific theory claims the universe came from nothing discipler?
The Big Bang Theory doesn't presuppose that all matter came from nothing. Not even part of the theory.
- Hym0
Big Bang is so yesterday, Super String Theory that's where it's at now
- ********0
It's quantum baby. Quantum.
- discipler0
Darwinian Evolution posits that a singularity generated from nothing and then it expanded. Unless one holds to a Theistic Evolutionary belief.
The Big Bang is an effect, not a cause. To suggest that the Big Bang generated everything, you just push the issue back 1 step.
- Mimio0
Discipler,
So you're saying Darwin said that? Big Bang Theory didn't exist when Darwin formulated his theories.
- discipler0
Not saying that, just saying that most people who adhere to the Darwinian model for origins would take the non-theist position.
- ********0
Discipler, you must be an absolute pill at parties.
- Mimio0
You're mistaken, most don't.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
- discipler0
i'm quite the ice breaker, actually. Especially after the lamp shade goes on the head.
- version30
who made god, where's his house
religion and god are mans answer to the realization of self
- discipler0
Then what do those who clearly understand and adhere to the Darwinian model say is the origin of the universe?
- mrdobolina0
the earth is only 6,000 years old, even though historical record goes back further than that.
- mrdobolina0
the thing about scientists is that they continue to ask questions, creationists have all the answers already.
- discipler0
version3, are you quoting Nietzsche?
God is unmade. He's the "Uncaused First Cause". And I contend that his existance is evident thru creation and thru changed lives. :)
- ********0
It's like talking to a rock. A small, feeble minded rock.
- discipler0
mrdobolina, what historical record? Which of the many dating techniques are you referring to?