Infidel

lula posts:

My point was simply that Students don't necessarily have to believe in Almighty God to be taught both sides of the debate.

Well, the dinosaurs were created before man so that would make them older...but as to how much older, well, some think that a few dinos survived Noe's Flood especially water or marine reptiles. Didn't they find some fossils of human and dino footprints together?

My parents helped...I'm one of 10!

Actually the population of the earth suggests the earth is young...much younger than the latest guess of 4.5 billion years old .

Evidently, the period between 1650 and 1850 was analyzed for population growth and changes. From that, one estimate provided that at about the year 3300 BC, there was only one family. Keeping in mind the rate of world population has varied greatly as a result of famines, wars, volcanoes, earthquakes, and fires, estimates of the population of the earth based on small sized family from the time of Noe's Flood in 2300BC to the time of Christ was about 300 million people.

Now, let's contrast that with what evolutionists declare....if the human race had been on earth for 1 million years even figuring in the lowest rate, the resulting population at the time of Christ would have been 2 times 10 to the 43rd people. (2 followed by 43 zeros)! Someone said that a 1,000 solar systems with 9 planets like ours could barely hold that many people, packed solid!

Yes, but you didn't understand them.

The fruit fly experiments show that two populations of animals, once divided, evolve into more distinct types of animals.

Since there is NO EVIDENCE for something that would stop or limit this evolution, they WILL eventually become VERY DIFFERENT, i.e. what you think of as different species.

You can disprove this. You can go ahead and find this stop or limit, this reason for why they would stop changing. But that stop has never been found. Just claiming that something would stop is not enough. You'd have to show evidence for it.

And if you think that "species" is that limit, you clearly haven't understood the point of this. Species borders do not exist in this process. The differences between species that you perceive (and that do exist) are just a lack of surviving populations between the two different species. This is exactly what Darwin's theory predicts and hence Darwin's theory remains the thing to teach.

A scientific theory is not something that is very very true, it is something that is very very disprovable. That's why Creationism is NOT a scientific theory: it cannot be disproven.

In science we do not look for explanations that cannot be challenged, we look for explanations that can.

Everything else is philosophy or theology and should be taught in philosophy classes.

The misconception you fell victim to is the belief that something is more scientific if it is harder to disprove. But quite the opposite is true. Science is what is easier to disprove.

Here's how Darwin's theory can be disproven:

1. Show how one species "turns into" another consistently.

Darwin's theory claims that this doesn't happen, that instead one species branches to become two or more. By showing how "one species turns into another", you would disprove Darwin's theory.

2. Show how there is a physical real limit over which change cannot happen.

The first is very difficult to do for Creationists since they have so little knowledge of Darwin's theory that they don't even know that it doesn't claim that one species turns into another.

The second is something you simply take for granted without proving it.

Either way, these are but two ways evolution could be proven wrong. Since those possibilities exist, evolution is science.

Creationism, to qualify as a scientific theory, would have to allow ways to disprove it too. So how one disprove Creationism?

Still not getting it? Let me explain it using another example.

Things fall towards the floor.

I can come up with two explanations:

1. This is caused by gravity, which could be disproven, for example, by observing just one heavy item fall up with no other power influencing it.

2. This is caused by G-d deciding that it should fall down. This cannot be disproven since observing it falling up can be explained by the fact that G-d, making His own decisions, might have decided so in this one case.

The first is science (because it can easily be disproven). The second is religion (since it cannot be disproven).

The same applies to evolution and Creationism. The first can be disproven (by many, many theoretically possible observations which have yet to be made). The second cannot be disproven (since no observation cannot be explained by "G-d made it that way").

Creationism explains absolutely everything. It explains what we observe and it explains everything we might ever observe. That's why it isn't science.

Evolution explains only what we observe. It does not explain everything we might observe. That's why it isn't religion.

If a rabbit appeared in front me, out of thin air, right now, Creationism would explain it and evolution would not. That's the difference.

Creationism is too true to be science. Truth explains both the observed and everything else. Science explains only the observed. Science is about facts, not truth.

I certainly believe the Creation story is true. God was the One doing the Creating and He is the principal Author of the Scriptures...so there can be no contradiction.

And it helps me answer your question. Genesis tells us that Almighty God called the world and all living things into existence by saying, "let it be" and it was.  Man was to be superior over all creation and instead of calling man into existence, God Himself "formed" the human body most perfectly. Physically perfect...their genes were perfect. God gave them supernatural gifts (perfect justice) and as long as they remained faithful to God's command, they were immortal, that is, their bodies were free from all sickness, disease, aging, and would never die. All of Creation was "very good".

But with their Fall, sin entered the world and God cursed the world so that perfect creation then began to degenerate and everything suffered decay and death.  

Scripture doesn't say how many children were born to Adam and Eve, however, the Jewish historian Josephus writes there were 33 sons and 23 daughters. These children would have not recieved any imperfect genes from Adam and Eve since the effects of sin and the curse would have been minimul to start as it takes time for these errors to accumulate. So, in this situation, brother and sister could have married with God's approval without any potential to produce deformed or diseased offspring.

Over thousands of years this degeneration would have produced all sorts of genetic mistakes.

But by the time of Moses, a few thousand years later, there were plenty of people on earth by then, and degenerative accumulations would have built up to the point that God forbid brother/sister and close relative marriage. Leviticus 18-20.

[quote]Also assuming the 3300bc = 2 people theory, how do you explain

1) The number of people that absolutely had to have existed for the Egyptians to have built the city of Memphis in 3150BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_egypt#Early_Dynastic_Period

2) The cliff carvings at Damaidi in Ningxia, China, dating to 6000BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_china#Prehistory

3) The pottery pieces found in the Guangxi province of china dating to between 19,000BC and 16,500BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_china#Prehistory

4) Radiometric dating that puts material from both the Moon and meteorites at 4.5 billion years old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

5) How the population of humans has ANY effect on the age of Earth

6) Fossil evidence placing humans in Africa 200,000 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans[/quote]

Regarding the highlighted, Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I wrote, "Evidently, the period between 1650 and 1850 was analyzed for population growth and changes. From that, one estimate provided that at about the year 3300 BC, there was only one family.", I was referring to the survivors of the Great Flood, Noe's family of 8, and not to Adam and Eve.

The info comes from Ariel A. Roth's "Some Questions about Geochronology" in Origins, Vol 13, No. 2, pgs. 59-60   He addresses # 5 above basically saying that taking all these factors into consideration, the population of the earth going back to Noe suggests the earth is young not 4:5 billion years old.

Besides population, check out this link for other good reasons why the earth is thousands of years young and not 4.5 billios of years old. It rebuts #'s 4 and 6  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsonzYYIPU

leauki posts:

lula posts:

Then you are working with a different definition of "evolution" than the  textbook one that is being taught in schools.

Nothing has evolved according to the textbook definition of evolution and therefore it cannot "be tested" as you claim.

That's why I said the fruit flies experiments was not testing evolution....none of the fruitflies gained new higher genetic information that the parent did not already possess.

responses to the points listed in the video

1) Does not take into account

i) Capture of the alpha(helium) particles within the elements that release alpha particles by radioactive decay, especially considering the necessity of a positively ionized element to acqure electrons, and alpha particles are easily stopped by a sheet of paper.

ii) Capture within the same non permeable rock as natural gas.

iii) Blow off of the upper layers of the atmosphere by Solar Wind, where most of the helium and hydrogen in the atmosphere is located.

2) Fails to take into account plate tectonics forcing material into the mantle

3) Fails to account for plate tectonics forcing the mountains into the air, as well as misjudging the rate at which erosion occurs.

4) Same as number 2, and even provides a way for the sediments from #2 to make it into the ocean where they can be inserted into the mantle

5) Does not take into account the fact that up until recently, most artesian aquifers could not be tapped, and the ones that flowed naturally were also replenished at a rate equal to if not greater than the flow of water from the aquifer. Mineral oil and natural gas also were not tapped until recent technological advances created a significant demand for them, so the natural wells that threw oil into the environment provided more than enough for those nations that utilized it. In addition, mineral oil found from naturally flowing wells was supplemented by the usage of whale oil

6) Basic chemistry principle of precipitation. Water does not provide enough lift to counter the force of gravity, so all of the elements listed, after reaching the solubility equilibrium of the solvent, in this case water, precipitate out, to the riverbed or ocean floor.

7) Ignores the fact that most of the Earth is water. Also didn't make the logical leap that the erosion mentioned in point 3 also effects the micrometeroic dust forced most of it into the ocean and thus into the mantle with plate tectonics.

8) Ignores the incredible heat generated during the formation of the star system, which the heavier elements conducted, and could not radiate off prior to the coalescenece of the planets. Those smaller than Venus did not retain enough heat to create the convection currents and maintain the tectonic activity needed to keep them warm.

9) Neglects the effects of heat radiation and that the moon has no atmosphere to keep the heat being re-radiated near the surface.

10) Neglects the effect of solar gravity.

11) Ignores the speed of light, and the size of the Milky Way compared to the distance from earth to the next nearest galaxy, Andromeda. The Milky Way is only 100,000Ly across, which means that, AT MOST, something happening on the far side, were we able to see it through the Galactic Core, would have happened 100,000 years ago. Unless of course you reject the speed of light is contant. Also ignores the fact that Supernovae provide the building blocks for star systems, and it should not be unexpected that those that we might be able see within our own galaxy, have already started condensing into star systems.

12) Just because things appear connected does not mean they are. In any of the cases (of which he provides none) where one can see a red shift of one intensity near or superimposed on a red shift of another intensity simply means that those astronomical structures are traveling away from the point of observation at different speeds in the same general direction.

Carbon dating scepticism) Making a wild assumption of 25lbs (11339.81 grams) of bone material, and assuming a bone composition of a standard mix of carbon isotope found in nature or 99% C12(11226.402 grams), 1% C13(113.3981 grams) and 0.0000000001% C14(one part per trillion)(0.000001133981 grams), it is very easy to determine a date on a skeleton. If, using the above measurements I find that the bones I just dug up from the middle of africa have a composition of 11226.402 grams of C12, 113.3981 grams of C13, 0.00000003248855565 grams of C14, and 0.00000110149244435 grams of N14, I can do some basic calculations to determine the number of half lives of 5730 years the Carbon-14 has gone through to get the years since the bone stopped replenishing its C14 and purging the N14, in this case 35 half lives or 200,550 years.

I also encourage you to read up on radioactive decay and how if you know the decay chain for an element, and the amount of stable isotopes your sample radioactve material decayed into, you can accurately determine the time the radioactive isotope was formed.

It can't.

And such "truth" is hence useless for science. Science needs theories that can be proven wrong, theories that make statements about not only what is possible but also what is impossible. With the "truth" you cannot make predictions. Everything is possible with Creationism, everything. It's useless to science.

In a 10th grade book.

Applicable broadly, as it happens.

Doombringer 90 posts:

OK, let's look at world population from the Evolutionist's timeframe. They claim humans have been here for 1 million years. So then, in a million years, with a modest estimate of 2.2 children per average family, the world population would have grown to 10 to the 2070 power. That's one with 2070 zeros after it. That number has no name and is so large that our entire universe could contain only a small fraction of people. This is according to Ian Taylor, "In the Minds of Men", 1991, page 338.

Again, where do you get "higher"?

We do not contain "higher" genetic information than our ancestors. The very idea of rating genetic information on a scale doesn't make sense, accoding to evolutionary theory.

Yes, our descendants were ape-like. We are ape-like too. In fact, we are apes. We are members of the family Hominidea which includes orangutans and of the sub-family Homininae which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, and us. I wouldn't be surprised if our common ancestor were similar to all four species named above. To us he would probably seem like an orangutan.

But our genetic information is not "higher" than the genetic information of that ancestor, it is merely newer. As new as that of modern-day chimpanzees and cockroaches to be exact.

The only ranking evolution knows for genetic information is fitness for a given environment. But this cannot be compared over time since there is no cut-off point at which we can differentiate between species over time.

If A and B are two populations of the same species and A(0) and B(0) are the first generation and A(n) and B(n) the current generation than the following holds true:

1. A(0) and B(0) are of the same species.

2. A(n-1) and A(n) are of the same species.

3. B(n-1) and B(n) are of the same species.

4. A(n) and B(n) might not be of the same species.

5. A(n+1) and B(n+1) are less likely to be of the same species than A(n) and B(n), idealised.

But at no point do populations A or B "change species" or acquire "higher" genetic information. The level of the genetic information on any ranking except fitness is always undefined. It's like asking whether d flat is more red than d sharp or whether red is bigger than green.