Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

I have only graduated as recently as this year. As for science, it interests me.

There must be something non-traditional about your academic career. You say you just graduated as an engineer, yet you have also said you took a class in Differential Equations over a decade ago. On a normal direct path to a BS degree in Engineering, 10 years ago would be Junior High School. I seriously doubt DE was taught in your Junior High. Mid-life career change, perhaps?

As for Michael Cadry I am glad he is polite to you. He is to me as well.

WAS polite to me. He's kinda mad at me right now, cause he feels stories about disembodied visitors are his province alone. i don't expect him to keep tossing me rep points any more.

 

[6days]

The fact that the universe is almost totally hostile to life actually rather suggests the opposite.

Almost?

 

[6days]

I have only graduated as recently as this year. As for science, it interests me. But I am even more interested in the Bible and communicating the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ to everyone I meet. As for Michael Cadry I am glad he is polite to you. He is to me as well.

Shalom.

I nominate this ad post of the day! Kudos to you for humbleness...and a desire to share Jesus.

 

[6days]

There are different scientific dating methods than only the ones employed by those who support evolution.

Many...yes...
Recession rate of the moon as an example.

 

[6days]

I'm referring to the debates Christians and evolutionists have had about the dating of rock layers. The same rock layers (evidence), but different dates (interpretation of that evidence). Again, I don't have any link for you. It's just that years ago I saw something about this online.

Correct...evidence requires interpretation.
There are Christian geologists who are excited of how evidence supports the Biblical account of recent creation and the global flood.
Can send you some links if you wish.

 

[DavisBJ]

Many...yes...
Recession rate of the moon as an example.

At last – thank you. For the past couple days all I could elicit from Untellectual was vague mention of unnamed dating methods.

But as for the recession of the moon, I am not aware that it leaves much of a historical timestamp that would assist in evolutionary dating. Unless what you alluding to is that the current rate of recession, if extrapolated into the distant past, would have the moon sitting on the earth just a few billion years ago. But that is an invalid extrapolation.

 

[Daniel1611]

I used to believe in evolution. So I started reading about it. Then I found out there is no evidence for evolution. It is nothing but 100% pure speculation to find a fossil and say this animal is proof that one animal evolved into another. There is no way anyone could prove that any given "transitional fossil" is not just another species. Aside from that, there is still no proof for evolution.

 

[DavisBJ]

Radiometric dating that gives dates of millions or billions of years relies on certain assumptions... and of course on some science.

For example... uranium decays into lead...
UH,,, I'm going to do my best to explain... BJ or Barbarian may help me out but possibly with some evolutionary spin.
235U uranium decays to 207Pb lead (daughter element) with a half-life of 704 million years. It actually is a fairly precise measurement of the decay rate. So ..... 235U will be half gone in 704 million years...In another 704 million years, it will be 75% gone...and so on.
But the assumption is that it was completely 235U to begin with.
But..... we know from Gods Word that He created. So... if God created lead as part of the original creation... radiometric results mean little, because we don't know the initial percentage of parent and daughter elements.

I am disappointed when I see this this argument put forth. Not because the technical content is wrong – for most certainly errors in knowing initial parent/daughter ratios will lead to incorrect dates – but because it implicitly infers that the actual scientists who do radiological dating must be incompetent morons. You think the importance of knowing the starting ratios is unique to creationists? There are lots of studies that look at what the concentrations of both parent and daughter elements was likely to be in radiological samples. And they cover far more than just initial concentrations – they look at the possibilities of contamination and of migration of materials out of the sample.

Come on guys, “radiological scientists are blithering idiots” just isn’t a very convincing argument.

 

[noguru]

I nominate this ad post of the day! Kudos to you for humbleness...and a desire to share Jesus.

That is false humbleness. He just uses belief in Jesus as a facade to push the weight of his over bloated ego around. You might be easily fooled by such sleazy strategies. But I am not easily fooled. True humility requires a healthy respect for reality, not just claims of belief in Jesus.

 

[DavisBJ]

I used to believe in evolution. So I started reading about it. Then I found out there is no evidence for evolution. It is nothing but 100% pure speculation to find a fossil and say this animal is proof that one animal evolved into another. There is no way anyone could prove that any given "transitional fossil" is not just another species. Aside from that, there is still no proof for evolution.

Welcome. Generalities are easy to throw out, but specifics are more convincing. Or, if you just wanted to vent a bit, we understand.

 

[noguru]

I am disappointed when I see this this argument put forth. Not because the technical content is wrong – for most certainly errors in knowing initial parent/daughter ratios will lead to incorrect dates – but because it implicitly infers that the actual scientists who do radiological dating must be incompetent morons. You think the importance of knowing the starting ratios is unique to creationists? There are lots of studies that look at what the concentrations of both parent and daughter elements was likely to be in radiological samples. And they cover far more than just initial concentrations – they look at the possibilities of contamination and of migration of materials out of the sample.

Come on guys, “radiological scientists are blithering idiots” just isn’t a very convincing argument.

It is actually quite humorous coming from Michael.

:rotfl:

 

[6days]

At last – thank you. For the past couple days all I could elicit from Untellectual was vague mention of unnamed dating methods.

But as for the recession of the moon, I am not aware that it leaves much of a historical timestamp that would assist in evolutionary dating. Unless what you alluding to is that the current rate of recession, if extrapolated into the distant past, would have the moon sitting on the earth just a few billion years ago. But that is an invalid extrapolation.

I think its very valid, and of course you don't.
Just as I think Radiometric dating extrapolations are invalid and you don't.
Or fish to philosopher extrapolations...etc

 

[Daniel1611]

Welcome. Generalities are easy to throw out, but specifics are more convincing. Or, if you just wanted to vent a bit, we understand.

There are no specifics. Evolution is ALL speculation. And absurd speculation at that. I have books on evolution. I have biology text books too. And NONE have anything specific. They all show micro evolution, or variations of a certain type of animal, and say it's proof for macroevolution. Then just show me the proof of macroevolution. And also, the "proof" of biological evolution is used as proof for chemical evolution. Show me any proof of chemical evolution. There is none. I stopped believing in evolution before I came to the conclusion that the Bible is the inspired word of God because there is no solid, concrete proof for evolution. It's all absurd speculation. I have a textbook that literally says everything in the universe came from nothing by itself. There is no evidence that anything comes from nothing by itself. It's not even just speculation. It's absurd. It's just wicked people trying to prove there is no God so they can live comfortably in their wicked sins and pride. The fool hath said in his heart there is no god.

 

[DavisBJ]

So, BJ, how did the Moon Attain a Synchronous Orbit, Naturally?

I mean, I think order in the Known Universe, Proves an All Powerful Designer.

Assuming (as noguru was probably right in doing) that you are referring to the moon keeping one side pointed at the earth, that is seen to be the case for most of the moons in the solar system – they almost all keep just one side facing the planets they orbit. The explanation might be that God has a fetish for wanting moons to act that way (even the ones where there probably isn’t even a bacteria on the host planet to appreciate it), or alternatively, noguru’s tidal locking might be responsible.

If indeed your “All Powerful Designer” phase locked one side towards the host planet, then He is a pretty incompetent engineer. See, if God wanted to move a rock from the top of a mountain to the valley below, He could heft it onto His back and trudge down the mountain with it, or He could simply give it a slight push and let the gravity roll the rock down to the valley floor all by itself. Similarly with moons – physics long ago understood why tidal locking occurs, and your “All Powerful Designer”, if He understands physics at all, would need do no more than toss a moon in orbit with no regard to which way it was spinning, and over time it would be tidally locked to the host planet anyway.

Look up “Tidal Locking” in wiki. Sheesh.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are different scientific dating methods than only the ones employed by those who support evolution.
Many...yes...
Recession rate of the moon as an example.

Sounds interesting. Show us how the recession of the moon is inconsistent with the age of the Earth as found by other methods.

Hint: look up the mechanism for the recession of the moon, and the measured rate, along with evidence for the length of day millions of years ago. And it turns out that continental drift has a lot to do with it, although perhaps not the way you might expect.

It might be an interesting conversation. But show us what you have.

 

[alwight]

I used to believe in evolution.

I have my doubts, but you could become rich and famous if you can falsify the Theory of Evolution.:idea:

So I started reading about it.

:sherlock: Real words?

Then I found out there is no evidence for evolution.

All that reading and none of it offered any evidence at all? Really?
Whatever did you read?
There must have been something claimed as "evidence" surely?

It is nothing but 100% pure speculation to find a fossil and say this animal is proof that one animal evolved into another.

Presumably then you don't agree that geology and the geologic time scale presents fossils (evidence?) based on probable age?
BTW do you realise that scientific theories don't exist to prove anything, they exist to describe "evidence" and to be falsified by the same said "evidence" they are describing if in fact they are wrong. But since there never was any evidence apparently then I wonder what all the many books on evolution are going on about? :think:

There is no way anyone could prove that any given "transitional fossil" is not just another species. Aside from that, there is still no proof for evolution.

But fossils are "evidence" then?
Even YECs accept that a limited form of rapid evolution must have taken place since their supposed global flood.
Not that anyone's ever found any "evidence" of a global flood either of course.lain:

 

[DavisBJ]

It is actually quite humorous coming from Michael.

:rotfl:

In fairness to Michael, he (unwisely) was parroting a post that originated with 6days. Radiological dating is probably not something Michael is well versed in (and apparently, neither is 6days).

 

[DavisBJ]

There are no specifics. Evolution is ALL speculation. And absurd speculation at that. I have books on evolution. I have biology text books too. And NONE have anything specific.

Speaking of specifics – specific claims are what are needed, so that there is not ambiguity when we look to see if the claim is true. You make some specific claims. I don’t know just which evolution books you have, or biology texts, but they must be the ones you got at the comic store. You see, I have all the printed issues of Science Magazine for the last decade on my shelves, and I have access to all the issues back to the last 1800s. On average, I find 4 or 5 articles pertinent to evolution in almost every issue, articles detailing the involved chemistry, or the actual measurements that were made, detailed photographs, and so on. Would you like me to list, say, a summary of the last 500 articles, to fill the gap in your books?

I stopped believing in evolution before I came to the conclusion that the Bible is the inspired word of God because there is no solid, concrete proof for evolution.

With the absurd books you seem to have selected, it is no wonder. Now get some good books, and you too can join the tens of thousands of devout Christians who understand evolution, and still honor their religious views.

It's all absurd speculation. I have a textbook that literally says everything in the universe came from nothing by itself. There is no evidence that anything comes from nothing by itself. It's not even just speculation. It's absurd. It's just wicked people trying to prove there is no God so they can live comfortably in their wicked sins and pride. The fool hath said in his heart there is no god.

Cosmology is a subject quite apart from evolution. As I suspected, you really have a burr under your saddle, and just had to vent a bit.

 

[DavisBJ]

I think its very valid, and of course you don't.
Just as I think Radiometric dating extrapolations are invalid and you don't.
Or fish to philosopher extrapolations...etc

You are sounding almost like untellectual now, throwing out generalized claims with no technical content so they can be examined in detail. Are you just venting, or do you actually understand what is involved in the interaction between the earth and the moon, or in quantum tunneling?

 

[noguru]

I have my doubts, but you could become rich and famous if you can falsify the Theory of Evolution.:idea:

That seems to be one of the major issues with people like Daniel. They think that "belief in evolution" is just some whimsical thing they can decide to believe in. They never seem to realize that science is not like that, and that in science we accept conclusions based on what the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates.