[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
I will go back to being in the audience.
[/quote]You could stick around and dance with me. I promise I’ll hold you close enough where you can feel my heart* pounding.
[/quote]
*Boner.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Where’s the evidence for young Earth creationism?[/quote]
Do your homework. Don’t expect to just plop down in your seat and be spoonfed so you can head straight to the frat party after class.[/quote]
Wait, Push, you’re a young Earth creationist? You can’t be serious.[/quote]
There is “evidence” for a young earth. There is also “evidence” for an old one. There is “proof” for neither.[/quote]
I’ve been searching, but can’t find any scientific evidence for a young earth besides references from the Bible and or literal interpreation.
How did you come to this conclusion? How do you dismiss evidence of mass extinctions, dinosaurs, extinct plants and animals that are fossilized and have been dated to be millions of years old? Surely if dinosaurs were around only a few thousand years ago, we would have better remains of them. Consider the fact that we have very complete mammoths in museums. If we follow this logic, we should have very complete dinosaurs (with skin), but we don’t. Just fossilized bones.[/quote]
Do your homework. Don’t expect to just plop down in your seat and be spoonfed so you can head straight to the frat party after class.
You haven’t been searching at all or at least earnestly. I see the time stamp from your last post. Go away and come back some other day.
Don’t expect to just plop down in your seat and be spoonfed so you can head straight to the frat party after class. Do your homework. [/quote]
If this evidence was so common, why can’t I or anyone else on this thread locate any? If you have the URL, I will gladly “plop down and do my homework”.
BTW, you didn’t answer any of my questions.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
So in other words, while it is known that fish at one point crawled out of the ocean and became land animals…[/quote]
No, it’s not “known,” it’s theorized.
As Bill has mentioned the transitory mechanisms and for that matter the transitory specimens aren’t “known.”
There simply is nothing even remotely concrete that shows species within a particular genus transitioning to another family or order or class or subphylum…
The evidence shows a tendency for speciation to occur, of course, but there seems to be an impenetrable “wall”, somewhat vaguely defined, but evident, that does not allow THE transitions so earnestly desired by evolutionary theory.
FAITH kicks in when this desire demands the overlooking of the vast gaps Bill mentioned. The “I don’t care about the gaps” mentality occurs because the alternative is special creation, “an idea I simply will NOT consider under any circumstances.”[/quote]
Push for starters please stay calm as it seems you are getting worked up easily.
ok so let me get this straight and if im way off base let me know.You are saying that creatures like the four legged whale, the coelacanth,the mudd skipper and just for the sake of argument the duck billed platypus arent Maybe!!! evidence of evolution from sea creatures to land.
or as I think you are trying to point out that the vast void of knowledge of HOW this happened is your determining factor for faith.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
So in other words, while it is known that fish at one point crawled out of the ocean and became land animals…[/quote]
No, it’s not “known,” it’s theorized.
As Bill has mentioned the transitory mechanisms and for that matter the transitory specimens aren’t “known.”
There simply is nothing even remotely concrete that shows species within a particular genus transitioning to another family or order or class or subphylum…
The evidence shows a tendency for speciation to occur, of course, but there seems to be an impenetrable “wall”, somewhat vaguely defined, but evident, that does not allow THE transitions so earnestly desired by evolutionary theory.
FAITH kicks in when this desire demands the overlooking of the vast gaps Bill mentioned. The “I don’t care about the gaps” mentality occurs because the alternative is special creation, “an idea I simply will NOT consider under any circumstances.”[/quote]
Push for starters please stay calm as it seems you are getting worked up easily…[/quote]
If you want to do business with me don’t slap this silly shit up on the screen. There was nothing excitable or inflammatory in my post. You play the condescending game with me and I will slap you around. Maybe calmly. Maybe not.
[/quote]
If I came across condescending understand it was not my intention, so please continue.
Young versus old, push let all of us know if any of this lands in the ballpark of what you are talking about.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
If this evidence was so common, why can’t I or anyone else on this thread locate any? [/quote]
Because you’re lazy. Or inept. If you don’t know how or want to type in keywords on your browser/search engine then there is no hope of you and I having an intelligent conversation.[quote]
If you have the URL, I will gladly “plop down and do my homework”.[/quote]
No, you won’t. I don’t believe it. You already jumped on here about five minutes after I first suggested doing it and crowed about how you “searched.” You didn’t search. You’re disingenuous. I don’t need to play with the disingenuous.
You assumed I didn’t do any research to this prior to my posting. That is incorrect. I have yet to find one convincing piece of SCIENTIFIC evidence that states the earth is a young earth. This is what I asked for, not simple articles that explain the idea of earth creationism, but scientific evidence.
Since you were so friendly with me, I found a video that explains early earth evolution fairly well to everyone else:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
If this evidence was so common, why can’t I or anyone else on this thread locate any? [/quote]
Because you’re lazy. Or inept. If you don’t know how or want to type in keywords on your browser/search engine then there is no hope of you and I having an intelligent conversation.[quote]
If you have the URL, I will gladly “plop down and do my homework”.[/quote]
No, you won’t. I don’t believe it. You already jumped on here about five minutes after I first suggested doing it and crowed about how you “searched.” You didn’t search. You’re disingenuous. I don’t need to play with the disingenuous.
Seriously why exactly is this guy pretending to be holding court on this? Most of the arguments I have seen have been derisive and at best questionable. Some have been flat out “disingenuous” to borrow a word.
Maybe my first impression is wrong, but in context of this thread he seems to be a pompous ass.
Grats to those attempting to actually have a real discussion.
Hey Push: "Thou shall not commit adultery. LOLOL
ps: See you in hell
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Young versus old, push let all of us know if any of this lands in the ballpark of what you are talking about.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp[/quote]
I didn’t read through everything on these links but yes you are on the right track if you want to find what some creationists view as evidence, not proof, of a young earth.
I will say that some creationists give credence to the “appearance of age” theory. Use the search function on the above sites and/or icr.org for an explanation.
The gist is if God created man, and the animals, and plants, i.e., all of biology, in a mature state as Genesis indicates it is not unreasonable to assume He created the geophysical, non-organic universe in a similar state.
This does not include fossils. What you see is what you get - billions of dead things laid down by water all over the earth. Science, whether coming from the creationist or uniformitarian/evolutionary mindset, establishes that fossils were indeed formed in this fashion. Creationists would argue that many were formed in a large scale catastrophic flood.
Evolutionists cannot argue they were not formed by heat and pressure after a rapid burial process of some kind with some type of flood being the likely culprit because…that is indeed how fossils are formed.
Fossils are NOT formed by life forms just “hanging around” after death out on the plains or in the mountains or in the crook of a jungle tree. They must be rapidly buried in order to be preserved and to where bacteria cannot consume and eliminate them.
Back to “appearance of age,” some would say this explains why light from distant stars was seen in the past and in the present because again the universe was created in a mature state. God placed the stars in the universe along with their photon beams “in place”.
[Edit: in all fairness one of the problems with this theory is the observation of things like supernovas)
Others point to theories about the varying speed of light or more specifically how it may seem to be slowing down with time.
One thing to remember is it is speculation NOT knowledge that everything we observe in the present has always been that way in the past. That would be a misstep or at the very least an assumption. Assumptions don’t carry the same weight as proof. (One example: dating methods.
If potassium CURRENTLY deteriorates into argon at an observable level does that mean it always has and always will and at the same rate?)
However if you really want the creationist perspective you must do your homework as I mentioned. I am in no position to do a tanker load of typing when one can simply click their way all over the internet and read the words of people who are much better versed than me.[/quote]
good post, my interest is sparked.
Claim over ‘human ancestor’ sparks furore
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100408/full/news.2010.171.html
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Claim over ‘human ancestor’ sparks furore
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100408/full/news.2010.171.html[/quote]
The so call furore is essentially a naming problem. After all, where do you draw the line for a different species in a gradually changing life system?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Claim over ‘human ancestor’ sparks furore
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100408/full/news.2010.171.html[/quote]
The so call furore is essentially a naming problem. After all, where do you draw the line for a different species in a gradually changing life system?[/quote]
…you know scientists, they’re sticklers for details!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Back to “appearance of age,” some would say this explains why light from distant stars was seen in the past and in the present because again the universe was created in a mature state. God placed the stars in the universe along with their photon beams “in place”.
[Edit: in all fairness one of the problems with this theory is the observation of things like supernovas)
Others point to theories about the varying speed of light or more specifically how it may seem to be slowing down with time.[/quote]
According to the sources I found (answersingenesis.org and several others), the “cdk” theory is not favoured by YECs. They seem to advocate the Humphreys model, which requires a bounded universe. But that assumption conflicts with the CMB data we have observed.