LogicandReason,

QUOTE

Just as I suspected, you can't cite any because you have not read any.

A laughable response on your part. Tell me: Do you know what the "Theory of Evolution" teaches and implies regarding death? I take it you don't, else you wouldn't have "challenged" me to provide "references" supporting my claim that Evolution teaches, requires, physical death "from the beginning". Good grief, I can prove my claim by simply quoting part of the essence of Evolution - "natural selection", otherwise described as "survival of the fittest". And as far as actually "citing" references - I have read LOADS of Evolutionary material, and at the drop of a fingertip could cite any number of references for you from Evolutionists themselves, in books or in research papers, which prove my point. But why should I bother, and waste my time doing so? That would be sort of like having to "cite" some professional mathematicians in order to prove that 2+2=4.

Now, as for the rest of the post, which I hope to get to later, your true colors are showing. You aren't interested in reasoned discussion, nor are you emotionally objective about the matter at hand. Which leads me to wonder if you are a hypocrite, given your earlier carefully worded and calm smearing of Christians as those who approach the issue emotionally, and thus without the proper objectivity.

Honestly Godsword, I started reading books on the subject last year and have digest three (not exactly riveting stuff would you agree?). The books were "Evolution" by Edward J. Larson...seemed more a layman's book with overtures versus minutia (history was interesting), "Evolution -VS- Creationism" by Eugenie Scott...good science but obvious bias, and "Science, Evolution and Creationism" by the National Academy of Science...concise and notable bias. I personally do not believe Genesis is literal (but that proves nothing). After studying the science, I would not bet my life that every said about the Theory of Evolution is accurate and predict that we may yet find further truth about the process. I think examples of natural selection strongly support this is a mechanism of the process, but I agree with you, on the macro level, we are guessing at best. None of these books discusses anything about what evolution implies (there is your bias) about death. So I Googled "What does Evolution imply about death" (this is where others test to see what I found) and there appeared Christian reference...nothing from science books. Surprising...It seems only Creationist imply a relationship between Evolution (origin and selection) and death. It seems that it conflicts with dogma. Unfortunately, the science side seems to reveal bias as well. I think anybody who speaks in terms of absolutes here is lying.



And yet, zero references...just ad hominem. Is this the problem "Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men..."?



Nice try! For those keeping score, please look up Herbert Spencer, a social Darwinist (and a horrible human being!). He coined the phrase "survival of the fittest." He published this before Darwin (social Darwinism had nothing to do with Darwin...his theory was linked to this quackery) published "On Origin of Specie." Shame on you Godsword...you told me that you were formerly educated in science and I know you know the difference. Mixing metaphors to link social Darwinism to Evolution...what next, quotes from Eugenics (another black spot in human pseudoscience).



Then please do...I'm trying to get some bearings here.



I must have missed the degree in psychology with your many credentials. Impressive. Did you catch a Freudian slip? Maybe you just think that there is no legitimate other side of the discussion.



I don't remember citing Christians period...quote me. But you are correct, I'm human and can be a hypocrite. You are wrong that I am emotional about his issue. I wish both sides would bring me more proof and less speculation. My biggest fear is that your side will stop the other side from getting it right someday. Lastly Godsword, I am indebted to your critique about science's absolutes. It keeps the scientist honest and working hard to prove/disprove what they are saying. We may not see this the same way but I never thought you were being disingenuous about what you believe.

Actually that is really funny...since the Gensis account says we are made of water and dirt which is clay in the potters hands!

About siting Wikipedia, it's more practical than trying to find out printed encylopedia that everyone owns. And usually has up to date knowledge.

I recomend reading "A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson. It explains in laypersons terms how things got started, to best of our knowledge. At least it should make a clear point that earth isn't just 6000 years old. I'm major in marketing (Business adminst.) (not to mention non-native english speaker) it could understand it reasonably well.

Experiments in crystal chemistry (as close as I can come to describing it) found that crystals in sphere shape of ones they made react to light and move on their own. It involves silicon.

I just found out that Wikipedia can't tell me what "Mitä vittua?" means! So far I have found that it is a Finnish swear word so I might not want to know after all!

It takes a recipe of arrogance and ignorance to arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Such solipsism! A great example of silly exegesis is the Church fighting for the geocentric model, until indisputable evidence proved both Copernicus and Galileo correct. If anyone on these boards wish to stick with the science of the 1st century and before, please give up your wheelbarrow.

I agree. Such a vast amount of evidence speaks for really old earth. I find it rather amusing not to agree with it.

Not everyone is a scientist. There is such an emphasis put on a young earth that it is almost more important to believe that than anything else for some Christians. The same people that eschew "doctrine" go ape if the doctrine of a 6,000 year old earth is not recited according to the party line. The Bible does not teach a young earth. Martin Luther commented that the Rabbis would not let anyone under 30 teach out of Genesis. Some have known of an "old earth" since before the 1st century. Hebrews, the Children of Israel, and before Eber knew the earth was not flat.

"Fundamentalist" Christians did not think the earth was young until the Scopes Monkey Trial. William Jennings Bryan was not a young earther for instance. The trial records are still extant and available to read. Menchken made his career secure forever on the trial. Anyway. People do not know recent history, ancient history, and so on. Christians are taught that it is almost sacrilige to know stuff in some circles. Part of this is from the bunker mentality science and Christianity has in certain circles within each group.

Very True Jack...and Christians wonder why people disregard any comments they make on science. I studied the Scopes Trial and Bryan was more concerned with the evil of Social Darwinism (has nothing to do with Darwin himself or Natural Selection). Spencer was a nut and he (along with the Eugenics crowd) probably helped the Nazis rationalize their sociopath-behavior during the second world war. Bryan, an otherwise semi-liberal, mistakenly mixed and matched evolution with social Darwinism...people are still doing this. The poster "Godsword" and I were discussing this a few weeks ago and he did the same thing. He professes to have a hard science degree...is that possible?

I edited a misspelling.

Sure. It is possible, I may show a little prejudice here but even biologists for the most part do not have a clue about Geology at least not enough to really understand what went on in the rock record. I can't even talk to them without some of them assuming they know it all about stuff they don't really have a clue about. Even oil engineers find it hard to believe a lot of things and they look at drill logs but through their eyes. We knew a formation would be productive and what its dimensions would be because we know bioherms. They had to take our word for it, they could not see it. The wells came in just like we said though. There are all kinds of science and all have a take on things. I delineated paleo-environments in an area comprising much of eastern Kentucky in a section of strata. I gave the relative age for the oldest known evidence of amphibians in the world. That involves a knowledge of things like paleo-palynology which only four or five hundred people in the world have. It involves lots of stuff. A scientist could read my stuff and understand it, but really not understand its implications thoroughly.

I suspect most people that think the earth is not young do not really know why to the extent I do. Keep in mind that I still know the Bible is 100% true. I have good reasons why too.

All solid and irrefutable evidence points to a young Earth - certainly, an Earth far, far too young for Evolution to have occurred as promoted.

Good. What is it?

Godsword will never answer that question. He can't. He betrays his lack of reason and proof when he says "far too young for Evolution."

When I was much younger, Christians did not like me as a Christian because I am a scientist. It was like "oooooooohhhh" he is bad. I took a friend to an outcrop and innocently answered his questions about the stratigraphy. He did not know the word "stratigraphy." He swore off being a friend and I never talked to him again because I was a tool of the devil.

I refused to discuss evolution v creationism with anyone for 30 years. I still do not, but I will make comments. Interestingly most Christians do not know the Bible except from what the preacher says or a friend. I put up a poll about Bible study and only a couple of people answered. Racy and sexy subjects like dinosaurs and people living togther garner more interest. Serious study of the Bible seems a bit mundane I suppose. Zeal for a young earth and smearing Roman Catholics seems a better defense against the devil.

I will say to you and anyone who reads this thread, study your Bible. In your case seriously consider turning your life over to Jesus. I am not pulling your leg. I am more concerned about people learning who God is than creationsim. I am a Creationist, but what I have c ome to know and understand does not play well in Peoria. Maybe Toledo, who knows. I was young and I know the temptation to chase rabbits. I didn't because I knew it to be wrong.

Evolution has not made a good case for itself. There are a few things the only answer is "I dunno." Darwinian Evolution fails badly in the light of what we know. I mean to say, it is still a theory after all these years and some things probably are not true from an objective viewpoint.

I would rather remain silent on some things for the sake of not making a Christian stumble. If they were really serious and knowledgeable and would think for themselves I might discuss it. Knowledgeable about the Bible and open to observable reality.

QUOTE

Me: All solid and irrefutable evidence points to a young Earth - certainly, an Earth far, far too young for Evolution to have occurred as promoted.

Jack777: Good. What is it?

All.

QUOTE

LogicandReason: Godsword will never answer that question. He can't. He betrays his lack of reason and proof when he says "far too young for Evolution."

I can't? Phooey. However, my claim that the Earth is "far too young for Evolution" to have occurred is based on sound reasons and evidence (note that I've never claimed "proof", because I reserve that word for Mathematics and Biblical Apologetics - all one can do in science is provide evidence and reasoning).

I think Godwords has "reason to believe" from the Bible that the Earth is ~6,000 years old, even though no specific Bible verse says it.

See Jack...he has no answer;neither does Jesus.

Excuse me but I do not understand

Having seen the movie and also having done some background on its claims, I would say it would be foolish to put any stock in it. Stein's movie is not a documentary, but really propaganda. It is also deceptive and at times blatantly dishonest.

As one example, exhibit A in Stein's list of people who have allegedly been 'expelled' is Dr. Richard Sternberg. One scene has Stein and Sternberg walking in front of one of the Smithsonian buildings commenting on how "Sternberg lost his office because he was a bad boy." Later, the film suggest Sternberg 'lost his job' because of his intelligent design views.

In fact, Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian. He was appointed to a non-payed research position originally in 2003. This means he was provided office space and access to specimen collections and the library.

The controversy regarding Sternberg began in 2004 when he used a separate position (also non-paid I believe) he had as the editor of a journal to get an ID work by Stephen Meyer published (probably circumventing ordinary editorial protocols in doing so). This controversy is what Stein referred to as Sternberg being a "bad boy" according to mainstream scientists.

Now, did Sternberg lose employment as a result of this controversy?
No. Sternberg's employment at NIH was unaffected.

Did Sternberg lose his office or position at the Smithsonian?

No. Sternberg retained his position as a researcher at the Smithsonian and was, in fact, reappointed for another 3-year term in 2006. He did not 'lose' his office, but rather, was asked to move to a different office along with at least one other scientist because of a reorganization at the Smithsonian. In fact, the Smithsonian even allowed Sternberg to select a different new office, other than the one he was originally scheduled to be moved to.

In short. Sternberg was not expelled from anything at all.

I could go on and on about the problems with this film, but suffice it say from this one example, as well as the obvious progagandistic (if that is a word ) techniques employed throughout the film, that Stein's work is probably not even 10% as reliable as Michael Moore's.

Godsword, unfortunately, in modern world you have to site some sort of reference everywhere. Replying "All" isn't unfortunately the kind of word we are looking here.

Tell me, have you EVER taken a course or a class about evolution, or anything even closely realted. Be honest. Don't count anything that was hosted by Kent Howind or such, but a neutral non-religious academic. Im talking about one to who religions isn't a subject. I suggest goint to your local library or open university if you have one, and taking a basic course or at least a book about the subject. It will not make you a devil worshiping atheist who eats children and listens death metal, but perhaps gives you some sort of a view what the other side is talking about.

...


This question / argument is as strong as asking an atheist "Have you ever been to church / read the Bible?" "Tell me, have you?"

.

Neal C.

I know I'm getting into this thread late.

My first comment is that one can find a collection of quotes to bolster almost any position one might like to take. This really says nothing about the truth of evolution.

Secondly, lets look at some of these quotes in a bit more detail.

THe Bounnore quote is from 1963. This is pretty old to be saying anything about the current status of evolution as a scientific theory.

I have not been able to find a citation for the Field quote. It appears on numerous websites without any indication where it was originally state or even when.

Norman Macbeth wrote in the 1970's. He also was not a scientists but a lawyer. See http://www.intelligentdesign.net/literature.htm for example.

D. B. Gower is a creationist, not a mainstream scientist. Certainly the statement quoted here is an opinion he is entitled to, but one which a huge majority of biologists and many Christians, including myself, would disagree with. In order for the fossil record to agree with Genesis, we should see fossils for all the species that ever existed present in the oldest layers, including humans. This simply is not the case. We do not see trilobites with dinosaurs, or dinosaurs with humans.

Alan Feduccia is a modern scientist. His quote, however, merely shows disagreement about classification. He is certainly not disagreeing with evolution.

This tactic is like finding quotes by some police officers that are critical of some aspect of the criminal justice system, and then concluding that all the inmates must therefore be innocent and should be released from prison.

Quote mining is a hideous thing to do. But when times get desperate, people often use desperate means.

And to comment neal, is it really? Think about it. Science relies on facts that can be tested and proofed. Naturally not everyone can or should invent the wheel all over again and do theise tests themselfs. Thats why we have books and classes and courses which sum up the results and pass the knowledge on, so the future scientists have some sort of a base to start from.

Religion on the other hand relies really closely on the personal side. You do have to find your god or gods. If they are there to find.

Argument that I'm not reading biology because you are not reading the Bibble isn't the most mature one you can make.

This is not at all what I'm arguing.

I'm arguing that when you're debating evolution with a fundamentalist, asking them "but have you ever taken a couse in evolution / read a biology book?" is just as strong of an argument as an evangelical asking an atheist "but have you ever been to church / read the Bible?"

If you don't like the fact that dogmatists use weak arguments against you, it's no help if you use equally weak arguments against them.

Proving that they haven't taken a course in evolution proves nothing.

Jack777 is the only exception.

Neal,

Well said! One can have all the education and PhD's in the world and completely LACK "common sense". It's called "scientific blindness".

Science used to be about "empirical observation" reliant on common sense, but no more, because the Naturalists' foundation of Evolution is never questioned even if diametric and dramatic counter evidence materializes to contradict it, i.e. a whole fossilized tree buried in several strata layers of the Geological Column and Fossil Record that we are spoon-fed by Uniformitarian Scientists the ridiculous notion that these strata represent 100’s of millions of years of separated epochs… again, though the fossilized tree occupies all the strata layers.

-7

^_^

QUOTE ('The Seven Thunders')

This is all too scientific for me.

With the exception of the -7 of course.

I can't even understand the dopamine levels of the brain let alone brain surgery.

I’ll certainly pray for you fellows and your cerebral deficiencies.

-7

Scientists are not so blind as you suppose.

They have already considered this "dramatic counter-evidence" and in fact, there are perfectly logical explanations for so-called polystrate fossils that are consistent with evolution.

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html.



Further on the article states . . .



So, we have that polystrate fossils in fact provide no 'counter-evidence' to evolution, and this has been known and accepted by scientists for over 100 years, including those who are and were believers.

It's misleading. Whatever mistakes made by the church in past has no effect on the next outcome of what will happened. Do I need to show you that Earth can be any longer as you wish?

Time itself is never a stable quantity. Earth can be in any age depending on what paradigm you are going to reference.

It makes sense. And this scenario is prophesied in the very first chapter of the Scripture.

---------
Science without a Theistic worldview (as prophesied);
People are too focused on eating from the Tree of Knowledge by neglecting the existence of the Tree of Life. They eat too much to think that they are in an equal status with God to judge and comment, and finally ignore God's Word.

The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge co-exist yet they can see only the Tree of Knowledge, while God lets them and thus hide away the Tree of Life.

The day when they eat the apple from the Tree of Knowledge, they shall die their second death, the same day started when the apple from the Tree of Knowledge fell on the head of Isaac Newton leading to the explosion of 'Science'.

It's all prophesied.

Here is a story which may open you to the possibility of how the Earth can be.

------------------------
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God started to create multiple spaces called 'heavens'. It's designed that humans, in there physical bodies, can hardly perceive the presence of other spaces, such as up to the third heaven, or down to Hades. While when human souls depart from their bodies, they will know right away what spaces/heavens could mean.

At the same time, God started to create Earth, but in His own laboratory, which is perhaps another space/dimension.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Originally, it's perhaps a dark and deep space, while waters are ready there to be poured.

Now perhaps a big planet (can be from anywhere, such as another universe and so forth) is shifted into the great laboratory. All forces are thus simulated to keep the planet in position, 'corner stone, corner stone, please hold the planet in position'. And it's done. But still, no source of lighting yet.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Now the source of lighting is made. And God said that it's good. And with the 'corner stone' stands ready, the Earth started to rotate. Wow, the first day of Planet Earth, man.

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Now the atmosphere surrounding the Earth is made. Wow, we have a blue sky now. And the Earth keeps rotating, just as expected and planned.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Now the ocean is made. Wow, we have seas and lands.

Should Dinasours be made here? Now a kind of Dinasours called species A is put to Earth. And it brings forward their offsprings.

Should another kind of Dinasours be put the same way? Now species B is created and put to earth. But here comes the question, can humans later on distinguish whether species B is a creation or is evolved from species A.

No, humans can never distinguish but they will firmly believe that species B is evolved from species A, as they believe that the bones say so.
Hello humans. :wave:

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Now the plants and trees are made. Wow, what a beautiful green world. Everything seems to be ready here in the laboratory, how about the status of the human universe now?

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Now in order to shift the Earth from the laboratory to the 'human universe', we simply need another set of source of lighting, the corner stone and other forces to keep the Earth in the correct position.

Now planet earth is shifted to its current position. Not too close to the Sun, and not too far away from it. Together with other stars in the Solar system, it keeps the Earth to its expected and planned position.



This is to say that human minds are so limited. Yet they think they know everything, after eating too much from the Tree of Knowledge, just as prophesied in the story of Adam and Eve.
------------------------


How old is earth again?