[quote]ramses wrote:
(I can’t believe I just quoted a creationist source… please don’t make fun of me.)[/quote]
You are such a NERD!!! 
Evidence For A Young Earth
? James Ussher (1581?1656) was Archbishop of Armagh, the highest position in the Irish Anglican Church, a product of the Reformation in England. He was also a noted historian and Hebrew scholar, highly regarded throughout Britain, both by kings and revolutionaries. Ussher was recognized as one of the greatest scholars of his time, being an expert on Semitic languages and ancient history. According to his calculations in the early 1600s, the Earth is really only about 6,000 years old. Usher, a great scholar, knew when Nebuchadnezzar lived, and he worked his way backwards through the genealogies and came up with a creation date of 4004 BC. Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould stated that if Bishop Usher was right about the Bible being true, then the date would be correct.
? Independently, Johannes Kepler (1571?1630), who formulated the laws of planetary motion, calculated a creation date of 3992 BC. Sir Isaac Newton (1643?1727), is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of all time, but he wrote more on biblical history. He vigorously defended a creation date of about 4,000 BC.
? The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which evolutionists date by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.
? Naturalists choose an “index fossil,” one that is in a certain layer and date it by when they think it evolved - not by Carbon-14 dating, nor potassium-argon, nor by uranium-lead dating. They date the fossil by when they think it evolved. Then they date the rock by the fossil, and then they prove evolution by the date on the rock. This is circular reasoning.
? They cling to these assumptions even though there is a lot of scientific evidence for a young Earth.
? Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, Earth’s population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago, comparing very well with the number of people on Noah’s Ark. Based on evolution’s claim for the origin of man, the same ? percent growth calculation for the human race results in a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics.
? Rivers pour tons of material every year into the Earth’s oceans. Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy the quantity of each element’s influx as well as the current concentration of these elements in the oceans. By simple division, they can calculate the time it took to reach present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation. None of these elements give an age of the Earth even coming close to billion of years.
? Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several “strata” of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them. At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.
? When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date many different things including oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by this method revealed them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating oil and coal using this method.
? Laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. Modern laboratories can duplicate the formation of coal formation in a matter of days - or even hours. Furthermore, massive seams of coal in the Earth remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken.
? The Biblical account of Noah’s Flood’s description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up strongly indicates volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins. This would have provided several of the key factors needed for the production of coal, along with an explanation of how the process could have occurred at such a rapid pace.
? The pressure in modern day oil fields is too high for them to be very old. Current estimates indicate that the longest a rock layer could keep oil under pressure would be 100,000 years. Oil is simply not as old as evolutionists’ claim.
? It is well known that the interior of the Earth is very hot. For each mile you descend, the temperature increases by 118 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth is a thousand miles in diameter; the core is so hot that the rocks are molten. Yet as Earth passes through the extreme cold of outer space, it’s losing its heat. Even with the heat it receives from the sun, Earth’s net heat loss is 1027 calories per second. This means that if it started at 190 degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, Earth would have been frozen stone cold to the center in the first 40 million years. If it were four billion years old, it should have been a huge sphere of ice over 100 times by now.
? Earth’s spin is slowing down at a rate of one third of a second every year. Extrapolating this back billions of years, we obtain an unreasonable spinning speed for the Earth.
? Earth’s magnetic field has been measured since 1835. It is growing weaker and the rate at which it is growing weaker has been calculated. If we extrapolate backwards, even to 20,000 BC, the magnetic field would have been so strong Earth would have been like a star and nothing could have lived here. Extrapolating further back, it would have been so strong it would have crushed the surface of the Earth in on itself.
? Evolutionists say that the magnetic field of the Earth has shifted from positive to negative at times - that’s how it keeps going. But observations of the sun’s magnetic field’s changing from positive to negative show it loses more energy each time instead of gaining energy. Applying the same criteria to the magnetic field of the Earth, we see is that it drops the age of our planet to about six to eight thousand years.
? Like a giant vacuum cleaner, the sun sweeps up almost 100,000 tons of inflow per day. The sun’s radiation pressure also pushes small, dust particles outward into space. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. If the solar system is really billions of years old, then the solar system should have been swept clean by now. Unfortunately for evolutionists, tons of space dust remain in our solar system.
? When spiral galaxies make one full turn they leave behind distinctive pairs of arms because the interior stars move around faster than the outer stars. These galaxies are supposed to make one full turn every hundred million years meaning they should have a pair of arms for every 100 million years. If the Earth is five billion years old, galaxies should have so many arms they couldn’t be counted. But astronomers haven’t been able to find a galaxy with more than three pairs of arms, meaning they haven’t been able to find one that’s even half a billion years old.
? A star cluster contains hundreds or thousands of stars moving, as one author put it, “like a swarm of bees,” held together by gravity. But in some clusters, the stars are moving so fast that they could not have held together for millions or billions of years. Star clusters tell us that the age of the universe should be measured in thousands of years.
? When big stars run out of fuel, they explode. Some of these “super nova remnants” are visible from the Earth. According to astronomical theory, in galaxies of our size, approximately 7,250 super nova remnants should be visible. Using the creationist age of the galaxy, we should expect to find between 125 and 200 super nova remnants. The actual number of super nova remnants visible from the Earth is 205, which is very close to the creationist numbers.
By the way, everyone keeps calling me a “creationist”. I am a “Christian”. I go by what the Bible says. Just because I believe that we were “created” doesn’t mean that I agree with what all “creationists” think. I often disagree with what certain “creationists” think and say.
There are “evolutionists” that have different opinions and ideas. Just because one “evolutionist” says something doesn’t mean that all the other “evolutionists” agree with the same opinion.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Studies of 163 early human fossils revealed that our skeletal structures have shrunken by 30 percent since our peak in the days of Neandertal. Even more disturbing is the discovery that our brains have shrunken about 10 percent during that same period. If it is true that we use only 10-15 percent of the human brain that remains this begs the questions: Did our ancestors use more that 15 percent of their brains and did they believe that they were the result of chance chemistry?
[/quote]
Are you referring to the Neanderthals? They are not among our ancestors, apparently. Our ancestors and the Neanderthals roamed the earth at the same time. Two intelligent species on the same planet.
The trick with brains is, it’s less about how big they are than how they are interconnected. Some animal brains are bigger than human.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Evidence For A Young Earth
[/quote]
Wow.
I am for once in total agreement with you, tuff. And let me tell you why:
From the ages of two to five, my penis grew an average of one inch per year, which gives me the respectable 33 inch cock that I have today. I am looking forward to playing jumprope without the rope when I hit sixty.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Evidence For A Young Earth
? They cling to these assumptions even though there is a lot of scientific evidence for a young Earth.
? Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers.
[/quote]
Sorry, not even nearly. The current growth rate is very recent, a technological phenomenon starting with the technology of agriculture.
Wrong again. Rivers are very ephemeral, none of them can be even nearly as old as our planet. Once upon a time there was only one continent. Where are its rivers now?
Yeah, if they were limestone sediments. No, it doesn’t take long if they are volcanic.
Carbon dating can be used on material which was living in the last few tens of thousands of years, and which got its carbon from the air. This does not describe coal and oil.
Yep. Coal seams, sandstone, volcanic stuff can build up much faster than other sorts of geologic substrates. So?
The same seams could also have been produced much earlier. No Flood needed here.
Petroleum isn’t like Champagne or something. Besides, where would the pressure have come from in the first place? Pressure is the result of geologic processes.
These figures are incorrect. In the first place the earth is about 7900 miles in diameter.
You neglect the angular momentum effects of accretion in the Earth’s early history. A natural error for a creationist.
The magnetic fields of the Earth and the Sun have rather different causes, and rather different curves over time.
I guess you believe the sun is at the center of the universe or some such? The sun and the rest of the solar system are sweeping through interstellar space. Not all of the dust swept up is in orbit around the Sun, by a long shot.
Several simulations result in spiral arms that condense and evaporate. They are ephemeral features also, younger than the galaxies of which they are part.
Especially the faster motion in some clusters signals the likely presence of a massive black hole. End of problem with holding things together.
Dude, very little of our galaxy is visible from earth, I hate to tell you.
So much for the young earth hypothesis. I won’t even bother describing how much countervaling evidence we would have to ignore to entertain your hypothesis.
Here is a 'way cool animated galactic rotation model:
Ouch endgamer, you just owned the living hell out of tuff’s post. I was gonna go point by point myself, but I’m a little busy right now so I settled for a dick joke.
endgamer, what makes you think that all those little answers you made up are correct? You either completely disregard everything because you simply believe the earth is 4 billion years old or you leave parts out and give half of a completely false remark.
The only thing you are correct about is the diameter of the earth, although even if you do the numbers given the correct diameter, it still makes a point of the earth being way less than “4 billion years old”.
If you claim to no so much about everthing. Why don’t you try proving the Bible wrong? I have looked at both sides. I was raised by evolution. Have you even cracked a Bible open? Why do you just automatically assume everything in the Bible is false?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Right here.
But we both know that you are going to deny their existence somehow.
A) “Those aren’t real.”
B) “Those don’t prove anything.”
C) “It still doesn’t mean we evolved from another species”
D) All of the above.
I figured I would save you some typing, so you can just post a letter as a reply and continue stumbling into walls or whatever you do with your belief system.
Because I care enough to make this easy for you.[/quote]
Why does the science community use the term “the missing link”?
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Why does the science community use the term “the missing link”?
[/quote]
It’s pretty cool, huh? We’re all Africans! I know this is old news to some of us, but you asked, so I provided.
As to the question above, I dunno. It’s catchy?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
Why does the science community use the term “the missing link”?
It’s pretty cool, huh? We’re all Africans! I know this is old news to some of us, but you asked, so I provided.
As to the question above, I dunno. It’s catchy?
[/quote]
You did’t answer my question, let me re-phrase:
Define the term “the missing link” in the science community and explain why it continues to be applied to evolution.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
You did’t answer my question, let me re-phrase:
Define the term “the missing link” in the science community.
[/quote]
Okay, you are getting tedious here. The term “Missing Link” has many uses, but in paleontology it refers to a gap being filled in on the fossil record. This may apply to a dinosaur, a frog, anything. The common understanding of it is a phrase which is used to describe human-specific gaps in the fossil record between steps in our advancement from a lesser species of hominid. Here we have another possible gap-filler, so to speak:
A very good article, I think. you will notice that the discoverers are a bit gunu-shy from proclaiming “we found another one!”, and this is because it is tricky to fit in where exactly something belongs in the fossil record.
You do remember about the gradual adaptation thing by now, right? This is the third time I’ve mentioned it in this thread.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
If you claim to no so much about everthing. Why don’t you try proving the Bible wrong?[/quote]
Sure, no problem. The Bible sez beware of witches, and they need to get burnt. There are no witches. The Bible is wrong. QED.
So all this is because you’re rebelling against your parents?
Anyhow, I don’t automatically assume the Bible is wrong about everything. I think Jesus lived, and I think he said many of the things attributed to him. When I contemplate the sermon on the mount, for example, I feel I am hearing the word of God.
My belief in God however does not require me to believe the Bible, and in fact I actively disbelieve most of it, particularly the parts having to do with the establishment of dogma, or even of the church itself. All of this is the erroneous invention of fallible human beings.
If I want to figure out how old the earth is, how the spiral arms of galaxies form and dissolve, or how living beings come to be as they are, or whether or not to eat shellfish for that matter, I don’t bother with the Bible. I have more accurate and up-to-date sources.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
If you claim to no so much about everthing. Why don’t you try proving the Bible wrong?
Sure, no problem. The Bible sez beware of witches, and they need to get burnt. There are no witches. The Bible is wrong. QED.
[/quote]
Magic, Spells, Enchantments, Charming, Sorcery, Wizardry, Witchcraft have all been practiced. This does not mean that they flew around on broomsticks like your new age “stereotypical” witch.
Research has shown that occult magic is often fraudulent and deceitful illusion - counterfeit miracles. Many books have been written on this subject. In some instances, occult magic or divination are a manifestation of demonic powers or the result of demon possession (Acts 16:16). Of course, the power of Satan and his demons is extremely limited compared to God’s power.
Those who follow the path of the magic arts are on the wrong path - a road that leads away from God, not toward Him. In one way or another, the end will be disaster. The evil Queen Jezebel practiced witchcraft (2 Kings 9:22) bringing catastrophe on herself and all Israel. Over and over, God denounces those who “conjure spells” (NKJV) and those who practice witchcraft and sorcery. The Bible says that anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord (Deuteronomy 18:10-12; 2 Kings 21:6; Micah 5:12; Isaiah 47:12; Ezekiel 13:18, 20; Acts 8:11-24; Leviticus 20:27; Exodus 7:11; Revelation 9:21; 22:15).
God warns of the ultimate punishment. Revelation 21:8 says of “…those who practice magic arts …their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur… the second death” (NIV). Those who practice witchcraft (sorcery) will not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21). These practices are anti-God and are in rebellion against Him.
Many of citizens of ancient Ephesus practiced the magic arts. Those who became Christians realized the foolish error of their former lives and burned their expensive books of magic as the trash they were (Acts 19:19).
The Bible tells how the apostle Paul once dealt with one of these deceivers, a sorcerer and false prophet who led people astray. “Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, ?O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.’ And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand” (Acts 13:9-11).
Would you stop jumping to conclusions. My beliefs have nothing to do with my parents who I love dearly.
Where is your proof of that?
[quote]
If I want to figure out how old the earth is, how the spiral arms of galaxies form and dissolve, or how living beings come to be as they are, or whether or not to eat shellfish for that matter, I don’t bother with the Bible. I have more accurate and up-to-date sources.[/quote]
This is because you are uneducated in the Bible and obviously have not studied it.
lothario1132,
There is no missing link. They have never found it and they never will.
The burden of proof is on you for everything that you have said. Nothing in your last post shows in any way, shape or form that human beings have evolved from primates. There is no way you can say that is fact, if you do you are flat out lying.
Why are the skeletons of Shaquell Oneill and Danny Devito so different if they are both human beings?
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
The Bible unequivocally asserts that mankind is a unique and special creation of God…[/quote]
Yeah so special we share the same 4 nucelotides as every other living organism on the planet. PAAAAAAAAALESE!
Why do human fetuses look frighteningly similar to other animals fetuses in the beginning of their formation? Because our creation process is no different than any other animal out there.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Research has shown that occult magic is often fraudulent and deceitful illusion - counterfeit miracles.[/quote]
Wow sounds firghteningly like the catholic religion doesn’t it? Except I’ll add a few more…Rape, murder, war, theft! “Please donate us money each week so we can afford this solid gold chalice.” I’m sure god wants priests to spend this amazing amount of money on materialistic stuff when there are dying children on every continent.
Keep going…you’re making this easier every post.
Ok, if I understood that correctly Lucifer (the Light-Bringer) encouraged Man to eat from the tree of Knowledge…
On the other hand we have a God that more or less demands to stick to the rules of a pretty-outdated, not-so-well-written book in the first place and to ignore everything that contradicts it…
I don?t think that I?ll start sacrificing goats or hanging up crosses upside down, but I think I have made my decision.
It is fascinating that in christian mythology the Prometheus-like charakter is actually considered evil whereas in other mythologies he is in defiance of the god(s) but actually on the side on mankind.
Not good for independent scientific thinking nononono…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Evolution is a scientific theory. Keep teaching it as a theory until something better comes along.
Creationism is a religous belief. Keep it out of science class.
Don’t try to mix religion and science. It doesn’t work.
Don’t belittle other peoples faith because they can’t prove it. It is called faith for a reason.
Don’t preach at people that don’t want to hear it.[/quote]
I think that Zap Branigan guy said it best.
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
The Bible unequivocally asserts that mankind is a unique and special creation of God…
Yeah so special we share the same 4 nucelotides as every other living organism on the planet. PAAAAAAAAALESE!
Why do human fetuses look frighteningly similar to other animals fetuses in the beginning of their formation? Because our creation process is no different than any other animal out there.[/quote]
Regardless of what the bible says, mankind is a unique among all living beings.
A man does not equal a chicken and a chicken does not equal a bug.