NationStates Jolt Archive

Just curious.

Carbon dating is wrong and the fossils are only a couple of hundred years old?

Just guessing.

God tries to confuse the believers and the nonbelievers.

earth's like a sandbox for humans.... and fossils are like toys that we can play with(which was given to us by god) and.....ugh.....yep thats it(complex isnt it ;) )

god put them there to throw us off :p

JESUS IS LORD

JESUS IS LORD
not for me

not for me


heretic!

or maybe im not brainwashed...
ever think of that?

heresy is only for those who believe in the religion blasphemer would be more apt. as for fossils well god put them there to mess with all the scientist, darwinist's, and anyone who doesn't believe in him. i guess not really to sure oh well ummmmm chocolate chip cookies mmmmmmmm what were we talking about?

heretic!
I [i]DO[/color]N'T[size=1][b] THINK[/u][IMG]SO![/font]

I [i]DO[/color]N'T[size=1][b] THINK[/u][IMG]SO![/font]


Before the Fall, there were no mistakes in BBcode.

My mother has had kids in her classes tell her that they were, "Bones from other animals put together to make 'dinosaur' remains"

By far my favourite: A child brought in a video that her church had given her to show my mother. In the video it showed children feeding the dinosaurs by hand and later on in the film it said that God had made the earth in 4004 BC, and put fossils on the Earth to make it appear much older. They said this was in order to "test their faith".

My mother brought the video home, we all had a good laugh

depending on the creationist, they are:

put there by god as a test
put there by satan as a trick
formed during the flood
non-existent

Just curious.

Are you asking about a young earth or old earth? or just about fossile dating?

The thing is fossils just aren't as old as many believe. I have seen man made objects encased in coal and a fossilized boot. The earth is actually only about seven thousand years old. "Scientist" date fossils by what layer of earth they are found in-true. Also true is that the layers are dated by what fossils are commonly found in them. That my friends is circular logic. The Bible mentions what many would call dinosaurs in JOB.

My mother has had kids in her classes tell her that they were, "Bones from other animals put together to make 'dinosaur' remains"

By far my favourite: A child brought in a video that her church had given her to show my mother. In the video it showed children feeding the dinosaurs by hand and later on in the film it said that God had made the earth in 4004 BC, and put fossils on the Earth to make it appear much older. They said this was in order to "test their faith".

My mother brought the video home, we all had a good laugh

Ha! Christmas list.

Well fossils are little bits of bone that were created on... some day during creation. God only knows what day. ;)

Then fossils were placed in the Earth, many, many, many layers of Earth, and all over. But of course God could do this really quickly, as he's like all powerful and stuff.

Then.... time passed. And scientists that are evil began to question God's creation of the fossils. Until they came up with the heinous theory that God was not involved in the creation of life or fossils, for which they shall burn in hell.

:D

The thing is fossils just aren't as old as many believe. I have seen man made objects encased in coal and a fossilized boot. The earth is actually only about seven thousand years old. "Scientist" date fossils by what layer of earth they are found in-true. Also true is that the layers are dated by what fossils are commonly found in them. That my friends is circular logic. The Bible mentions what many would call dinosaurs in JOB.

sarcasm? actual creationist? impossible to tell.

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/2.html

The thing is fossils just aren't as old as many believe. I have seen man made objects encased in coal and a fossilized boot. The earth is actually only about seven thousand years old. "Scientist" date fossils by what layer of earth they are found in-true. Also true is that the layers are dated by what fossils are commonly found in them. That my friends is circular logic. The Bible mentions what many would call dinosaurs in JOB.

Assuming you're serious.

Scientists also use Carbon 13 dating to date fossils. That's an outside, independent source. Or tree rings can get you back a few thousand years.

No scientist would use circular logic to justify something and continue to work as a scientist.

Ha! Christmas list.

Yea it was almost as good as the Cane Toads video she has....

Cane Toads- http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0130529/

The thing is fossils just aren't as old as many believe. I have seen man made objects encased in coal and a fossilized boot. The earth is actually only about seven thousand years old. "Scientist" date fossils by what layer of earth they are found in-true. Also true is that the layers are dated by what fossils are commonly found in them. That my friends is circular logic. The Bible mentions what many would call dinosaurs in JOB.

You know, on the show Roswell (WB, then UPN, now SCI-FI), Max (teh hero) changed the, er, whatevers in Agent Pierce's dead bones so that the people would think he had been dead for 50 years (though really Michael had kille3d him months before). Which is why you can't rely on carbon dating. There will always be an alien around to fuck with it.

p.s. I love this song. unadulterated loooaaathing, for your face, your voice, your clothing

I do believe in intelligent design (I'm a Christian), but I don't just pretend to be blind to geographical evidence. Keep in mind, there are several theories that try to meld together creationism with evolution/geological stuff.

One of them is the Day-Age theory. Under that, each Biblical "Day" represents a huge geological period. Another is the Gap theory, which allows for a huge span of time between the creation of earth and the creation of The Garden of Eden, sometime around 4,000 BC.

Neither theory is terribly strong, but in my opinion, the Day-Age theory makes much more sense. But that's just my opinion. It may seem far-fetched, but I think its possible.

The thing is fossils just aren't as old as many believe. I have seen man made objects encased in coal and a fossilized boot. The earth is actually only about seven thousand years old. "Scientist" date fossils by what layer of earth they are found in-true. Also true is that the layers are dated by what fossils are commonly found in them. That my friends is circular logic. The Bible mentions what many would call dinosaurs in JOB.

No they don't. I don't know why you think this, but next time find out what the ACTUALLY DO before assuming something. Nowadays they use carbon dating and a few other similar methods to determine the age of biological material.

Do you want to explain why certain fossils are found only in certain layers? Or why going from deep in the earth to the surface the complexity of the fossilized creatures increases? If they all existed at the same time, these more complex animals would exist even in the older layers.

Just look at some more complete fossil collections, you can basically see evolution right in front of you.

In the immortal words of Bill Hicks; If fossils are here to test our faith; doesn't that freak anyone out that god might be fucking with us; a prankster god, burying fossils.
"I am god...heehee"
"I am a prankster...teehee."
"I am killing me..."

They create BS claims (see muddman above) which are easily proven (if they actually allow anyone to check the item) to be false. Then they use false data (better known as lying) to "prove" their claims.

When they're caught, they usually claim their god put them there to "test their faith" leading to the unavoidable conclusion that the "father of lies" they warn about is none other than their own god.

Before the Fall, there were no mistakes in BBcode.

If god really existed, he wouldn't have created something as annoying as BBcode in the first place.

QED.

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/fossils.htm

Most creationists dont actually believe that fossils are Millions of years old is all. Come on Carbon dating? Carbon dating can come up with a range of dates by millions of years from not only the same fossil but from fossils from the same layer of earth....

Just look at some more complete fossil collections, you can basically see evolution right in front of you.
Not one thoroughly evolutionist textbook I've ever had has been able to produce actual photos. Can you?

If fossils aren't that old then who would win in a fight; Jesus or the Dinosaurs?

Just curious.
It is obvious that things die and leave traces; that is not in dispute. There is also nothing in creationism that says dinosaurs and similar life couldn't exist. Therefore, it's a moot question.
Check out the science at http://www.creationists.org/

Not one thoroughly evolutionist textbook I've ever had has been able to produce actual photos. Can you?

Logic and an open and enquiring mind suffice very well. It's worth trying some time.

It is obvious that things die and leave traces; that is not in dispute. There is also nothing in creationism that says dinosaurs and similar life couldn't exist. Therefore, it's a moot question.

Yeah, but most fossils have been proven to be older than the 4004 BC date the Creationists have set as the creation of the world.

Not one thoroughly evolutionist textbook I've ever had has been able to produce actual photos. Can you?

If thats the best you can come up with then where are all the pictures of god, as he makes the entire world in 6 days; missing out dinosaurs, whose bones somehow appear as if by magic; and the invisible being then vanishes again and ignores humankind?

Not one thoroughly evolutionist textbook I've ever had has been able to produce actual photos. Can you?

A quick search got me:

Horse Fossil, notice the trend of individual toes forming the hoof
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Graphics/miller_fig6.gif

Humans, the classic monkey to man. Not fossils per se, but these rendering are all based on fossil records.
http://www.evol.net/evol/images/timeline.jpg

It is obvious that things die and leave traces; that is not in dispute. There is also nothing in creationism that says dinosaurs and similar life couldn't exist. Therefore, it's a moot question.
Check out the scienceat http://www.creationists.org/

lmao.

How about you check out the real science at http://ww.talkorigins.org

Or maybe you could state a point and one of us could refute it.

Yeah, but most fossils have been proven to be older than the 4004 BC date the Creationists have set as the creation of the world.
That is a date that the Papacy issued long ago (which was actually closer to 10,000 years). Regardless, that isn't Biblical, and thus doesn't apply to all of us; not even most.

Check out the science at http://www.creationists.org/

:confused:
I don't see any science, what am I missing?

lmao.

How about you check out the real science at http://ww.talkorigins.org

Or maybe you could state a point and one of us could refute it.
Maybe you could type a correct web address, brilliance. Apparently you are much more qualified to speak on this issue than the PhD-holding physicists, biologists, and chemists at Creationists.org, guy whom cannot issue a correct URL.

I'm a Christian who believes in the creation of the world by God, but who also believes that fossils are millions of years old. Believing in creation does not mean belief in a strict constructionist interpretation of every single word in the bible. My dad, was a Southern Baptist preacher with a Ph.D. who taught me the bible was written by men who were inspired by God and who wrote things within the constructs of their understandings and the time period they lived in and some of what they wrote was allegorical and symbolic, but not factual. I have no problem reconsiling a billion+ year old earth and evolution with a biblical creation. I don't think for a second the world is only some 7,000 years old or that everything was created in 6, twenty-four hour days. That doesn't mean it wasn't created though. Evolution was a process God created and put into place for the life forms on earth (and elsewhere more than likely) and one day he decided that intelligence and free will were needed, not just animal instinct, and so he "breathed life" (i.e. instilled intelligence) into "adam and eve" (and maybe Lillith if you go for that mythology) who were the evolutionary ancestors of modern man. If you'll read Genesis and ignore the idea of the time frame and just look at the order in which things were created, it pretty well follows the evolutionary timetable in terms of what came first. - The sun, the planet earth, the oceans on earth, land masses on earth, plants, sea creatures (in Gen. 1:21 it says sea monsters even - so how about things like a itchyasaurous, etc.) animals and then people - the evolutionary plan says it would come about in this order.

That is a short and simple post, but it should serve to illustrate what I believe, that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive and that as a creationist, I don't need to "explain" fossils, they are what they are, so what.

EDIT: I hate the way "creationism" has come to mean "strict biblical interpretationism" they are NOT the same thing. As noted in my post, not all people who believe God created the world believe the bible presents an infallible, acurate, facutual depiction of how he did so.

:confused:
I don't see any science, what am I missing?
You probably aren't reading the website.

Do you want to explain why certain fossils are found only in certain layers? Or why going from deep in the earth to the surface the complexity of the fossilized creatures increases? If they all existed at the same time, these more complex animals would exist even in the older layers.

The problem is that the creationist position (not a theory, BTW, since it's not testable) is that the world (or universe, if you will) was created by a sentient being. Once you believe that, then you can argue that this being put anything at all in it, for any purpose at all.

So, is god whimsical? Does god enjoy setting mysteries and puzzles? These would seem to be logical outcomes of the creationist position.

Does that mean the idea is wrong? Not necessarily, but it does mean that it can't be disproved or even effectively argued against. It's probably more profitable to bash your head against a wall. At least the wall has a definite point at which it will collapse, while religion doesn't.

yay for Lilith! A strong feminine role model!

Maybe you could type a correct web address, brilliance. Apparently you are much more qualified to speak on this issue than the PhD-holding physicists, biologists, and chemists at Creationists.org, guy whom cannot issue a correct URL.

:rolleyes: Is it really so incredibly difficult to work out the correct URL? This has to be one of the most pathetic rebuttals I have ever seen.

Maybe you could type a correct web address, brilliance. Apparently you are much more qualified to speak on this issue than the PhD-holding physicists, biologists, and chemists at Creationists.org, guy whom cannot issue a correct URL.

If you're going to be so picky, then please try to use the word 'whom' correctly. :)

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Couldn't have added the extra w in yourself, eh? Aw.

You probably aren't reading the website.
I did read some. I didn't see science. I saw men who apparently hold degrees in science espousing views that have no scientific basis. They hold the view that the earth is only a few thousand years old and created by god, and only present evidence that support that position. They don't look at the evidence and then present a theory that conforms to the evidence, thats called science.

Also, here you go:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Don't be the grammar Nazi, it helps no one.

Oh, I want to see Creationists explain helicoprolites.

Oh, I want to see Creationists explain helicoprolites.

Explain.

True, scientists can use carbon dating, but that is by no means an accurate method. A [live] clam was once dated, and it read 7,000 years old. To me, that raises an eyebrow or two.

God created the earth a long time ago...the story of the earth being created in seven days is metaphorical, because it also says in the bible "to God, a day is but a thousand years". so it was actually thousands of years to create the earth, meaning that fossils are entirely legit.
this also means that in, "a day is but a thousand years" it took thousands of years for god to create and perfect us as human beings. so in the time during which we were being created, other things lived and died during that time... All you need left to explain fossils is your daily dose of earth science, bones and debris get caugth under collecting sediments and they get compacted. TA-DA! u have fossils... when you go and critisize something, it might be wise to make sure you are aware of the WHOLE beleif system, because your answer is probably lurking in there somewhere.

True, scientists can use carbon dating, but that is by no means an accurate method. A [live] clam was once dated, and it read 7,000 years old. To me, that raises an eyebrow or two.

Which is why there are other methods of dating, and when new techniques are developed or old techniques improved, the age estimate is refined.

Nobody has ever claimed that scientific results are perfect. What they do claim is that theories are measurable, testable, and experiments can be performed to yield results that either strengthen or weaken the premise. The scientific method is a very powerful tool to understand how a system works when used correctly.

None of this can be said about any of the religious claims.

God created the earth a long time ago...the story of the earth being created in seven days is metaphorical, because it also says in the bible "to God, a day is but a thousand years". so it was actually thousands of years to create the earth, meaning that fossils are entirely legit.
Just a minor correction: it was more like billions.

God created the earth a long time ago...the story of the earth being created in seven days is metaphorical, because it also says in the bible "to God, a day is but a thousand years". so it was actually thousands of years to create the earth, meaning that fossils are entirely legit.
this also means that in, "a day is but a thousand years" it took thousands of years for god to create and perfect us as human beings. so in the time during which we were being created, other things lived and died during that time... All you need left to explain fossils is your daily dose of earth science, bones and debris get caugth under collecting sediments and they get compacted. TA-DA! u have fossils... when you go and critisize something, it might be wise to make sure you are aware of the WHOLE beleif system, because your answer is probably lurking in there somewhere.

I was referring specifically to the Creationists who believe the Earth was created a mere 6, 000 years ago.

We can do a Rubidium 87 to Strontium 87 test. It's half-life is 47,000,000,000 years. This is the most common system used for dating rocks older than 100 million years. We could determine a substance's existence up to about 94 billion years. That in itself disproves it. How can we also refute evolutionism when monkeys are up to 97.6% similar in DNA as humans?

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/humancol.htm

"The oldest rocks on earth that have been dated thus far include 3.4 billion year old granites from the Barberton Mountain Land of South Africa, 3.7 billion year old granites of southwestern Greenland, ..." Levin, 1983

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html

God created the earth a long time ago...the story of the earth being created in seven days is metaphorical, because it also says in the bible "to God, a day is but a thousand years". so it was actually thousands of years to create the earth, meaning that fossils are entirely legit.
this also means that in, "a day is but a thousand years" it took thousands of years for god to create and perfect us as human beings. so in the time during which we were being created, other things lived and died during that time... All you need left to explain fossils is your daily dose of earth science, bones and debris get caugth under collecting sediments and they get compacted. TA-DA! u have fossils... when you go and critisize something, it might be wise to make sure you are aware of the WHOLE beleif system, because your answer is probably lurking in there somewhere.

Thanks. but you and I will be ignored since it is easy to attack "strict biblical interpretationism" and not so easy to find fault with the idea that you and I have posited.

God created the earth a long time ago...the story of the earth being created in seven days is metaphorical, because it also says in the bible "to God, a day is but a thousand years". so it was actually thousands of years to create the earth, meaning that fossils are entirely legit.
this also means that in, "a day is but a thousand years" it took thousands of years for god to create and perfect us as human beings. so in the time during which we were being created, other things lived and died during that time... All you need left to explain fossils is your daily dose of earth science, bones and debris get caugth under collecting sediments and they get compacted. TA-DA! u have fossils... when you go and critisize something, it might be wise to make sure you are aware of the WHOLE beleif system, because your answer is probably lurking in there somewhere.

Let's put aside the fact that there is now way to test your statement. Even so, the math doesn't work out:

1 day = 1,000 years. If the earth was created in 7 days, all fossils should be within 7,000 years of each other. This is clearly not the case - fossils have been dated to well over half a billion years ago.

Or is the literal explanation of the metaphorical statement also metaphorical?

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/fossils.htm

Most creationists dont actually believe that fossils are Millions of years old is all. Come on Carbon dating? Carbon dating can come up with a range of dates by millions of years from not only the same fossil but from fossils from the same layer of earth....

.8: There are places where supposedly older rock strata rest upon supposedly younger rock strata. Since this is geologically impossible, there must be something wrong with conventional means of dating rock strata. REPLY: Normal geological processes in certain regions are able to thrust older layers on top of younger layers in certain regions. These processes leave discernible effects which geologists can detect. Creationists seek to repudiate overthrusting by hiding the evidence for it from their audiences (Eldredge 1982:105-108).

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge responds to the charge that overthrusting is an ad hoc hypothesis designed to save the "evolutionary" geological column:

Do paleontologists really invoke overthrusting just to save their story? Are there no independent ways to demonstrate that massive dislocation of strata has occurred? Well, there are -- the main one being that, along all faults, in places where both sides of the rocks are exposed, there is (naturally enough) a zone of pulverized rock caused by the scraping of the two masses against each other. In addition, slickensides, essentially scars of the movement, are typically seen on the faces of the rocks on both sides of the fault. (Eldredge 2000:111)

Ph.D.s are a dime a dozen these days. There are enough whackjobs with them that it is hardly a valuable indicator of credibility. Keep in mind also that Ph.D. as a title is very little information. My father holds a Ph.D. and works as a neurologist, but he certainly doesn't have any expertise in fossilized remains. Look at the sources and the science, not the title.

After getting over the fact that creationists.org looks like an elementary school project using MS Paint, I took a look at some of their information. Unsubstantiated personal accounts (http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Funmuseum.mus.pa.us%2Fquet.htm) substantiated by poor 3D renderings of pterodactyls are hardly evidence. There are plenty of people who "know" they saw green men with huge beady black eyes flying around in silver spaceships.

If the creationists want to convince me that science is wrong, it will take more than some 3D drawings and a couple of Ph.D.s to back it up.

Ph.D.s are a dime a dozen these days. There are enough whackjobs with them that it is hardly a valuable indicator of credibility. Keep in mind also that Ph.D. as a title is very little information. My father holds a Ph.D. and works as a neurologist, but he certainly doesn't have any expertise in fossilized remains. Look at the sources and the science, not the title.

After getting over the fact that creationists.org looks like an elementary school project using MS Paint, I took a look at some of their information. Unsubstantiated personal accounts (http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Funmuseum.mus.pa.us%2Fquet.htm) substantiated by poor 3D renderings of pterodactyls are hardly evidence. There are plenty of people who "know" they saw green men with huge beady black eyes flying around in silver spaceships.

If the creationists want to convince me that science is wrong, it will take more than some 3D drawings and a couple of Ph.D.s to back it up.

I thought they were pretty good...

Thanks. but you and I will be ignored since it is easy to attack "strict biblical interpretationism" and not so easy to find fault with the idea that you and I have posited.

Your idea (assuming I have it correct): God created the world and then left it to run on its own.

Scientific theory: The world was created by chance and then left to run on its own.

God? Chance? Occam's Razor suggests that including god in the equation makes it unnecessarily complicated and should be presumed an unlikely model unless the simpler one falls is shown to be false.

Since you don't provide any possible way to test your statement, it can't be shown to be wrong.

True, scientists can use carbon dating, but that is by no means an accurate method. A [live] clam was once dated, and it read 7,000 years old. To me, that raises an eyebrow or two.

2.3: Many radiometric dating tests have yielded false results. Evolutionists discard all those that are inconsistent with their prior assumptions and keep those that support their theory. REPLY: There have been thousands of dating tests performed by independent laboratories and a wide variety of radioisotopes. Virtually all of the results correlate with evolutionary expectations. The comparatively few anomalies in radiometric dating tend to vanish when the samples are reanalyzed. (Eldredge 1982:103

I thought they were pretty good...

Meh. They need to learn some texturing techniques from the folks who did Lord of the Rings and the folks who did Final Fantasy. They may have the same rough shape of a pterodactyl, but they still look like they were made by a high school student in his 3D design class.

Meh. They need to learn some texturing techniques from the folks who did Lord of the Rings and the folks who did Final Fantasy. They may have the same rough shape of a pterodactyl, but they still look like they were made by a high school student in his 3D design class.

I was referring to the water effects specifically. I agree with you though, the texturing on the pterodactyl is subpar.

I was referring to the water effects specifically. I agree with you though, the texturing on the pterodactyl is subpar.

Have you seen the water rendering in Half-Life 2? It is seriously amazing (http://mediaviewer.ign.com/ignMediaPage.jsp?media_id=2473620&article_id=567437&channel_id=192&page_title=Half-Life+2+DirectX+Comparison&adtag=network%3Dign%26size%3D468x60%26channel%3Dgear%26site%3Dgear_hub%26channel%3Dfeatures%26type%3 Dpartner)

The truths that are being revealed through scientific research, exploration and discovery fill me with more awe and wonder than all the whoppers set forth by the Council of Nicaea in 325.

can i ask where are all you people getting all this stuff from? i dont remember the bible saying any date the world began.

and 7 "days" is not 7 "days" as we know it.- i have a question for evolutionists- why do monkeys still exist than?...

can i ask where are all you people getting all this stuff from? i dont remember the bible saying any date the world began.

and 7 "days" is not 7 "days" as we know it.- i have a question for evolutionists- why do monkeys still exist than?...

What do you mean? Just because a strain of primates (homo sapiens) broke from the rest and evolved into humans doesn't mean that all other strains of primates have to cease to exist.

can i ask where are all you people getting all this stuff from? i dont remember the bible saying any date the world began.

and 7 "days" is not 7 "days" as we know it.- i have a question for evolutionists- why do monkeys still exist than?...

That you even ask that question proves that you know nothing of evolution.

Monkeys still exist because humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys evolved from the same ancestor, and gradually "grew away from" one another until they became the species that they are today.

It is very simple. Evolutionists would like you to believe that dinosaurs are "millions of years old" and the earth is "billions of years old" because they need massive amounts of time in order for their theories to be valid.

Modern "dating" methods assume an initial radioactive percent and a constant rate of decay with no outside variables to "taint" the sample. In other words if a specimen were kept under controlled laboratory conditions and the initial radioactive percentage and rate of decay is the same as it is today, then the tests would be accurate. However this is NEVER the case and the amount of tampering with a specimen that occurs in nature completely invalidates all modern dating methods.

First the “initial percentage of radioactive material” has been proven to be changing even today. The percentage of Carbon 14 to normal Carbon has been fluctuating since man first began measuring it. Scientist that first used Carbon 14 dating said that the amount of Carbon 14 should stabilize after 50,000 years after the planet was formed; it was assumed that since the earth was “millions of years old” that this would not be a problem. The fact that the level of Carbon 14 is still fluctuating, according to the original theories, would indicate an earth that is younger than 50,000 years has been completely dismissed by evolutionists.

Additionally, the environmental conditions surrounding a specimen can severely impact its apparent rate of decay. Water running through the ground has been shown to “leach” away certain elements, while leaving other elements behind. One of the elements used in other forms of dating is a certain isotope of lead. This isotope is inherently resistant to leaching while its radioactive counterpart is not. As the radioactive isotope decays it slowly becomes the non-radioactive isotope. But because of water leaching away the radioactive isotope, but leaving its non-radioactive counterpart, the rate of decay appears to be faster.

Each dating method has also been proven to be inaccurate. Specimens taken from the SAME Wooly Mammoth carbon dated from 20,000 years old to more than 40,000 years old. Artifacts dug from the ashes of historical volcanic eruptions have been dated to being millions of years old.

The biggest things evolutionists overlook are natural disasters. A single natural disaster can rearrange the landscape in a hurry. Additionally natural disasters have a drastic affect on all dating methods.

The biggest natural disaster on the face of the earth has been commonly dismissed as a fairy tail, even though there is significant evidence for it. The flood in the days of Noah was a reality. It was not a “localized” flood; the entire earth was covered by water.

If you take a bunch of dirt, rock, sand, etc and add it to water, shake it up and let it settle, the different types of material will layer. This phenomenon is known as Hydrological Sorting. The same thing happened on a global scale, forming the layers of strata that we see today. Most of the fossils were formed at the time of the flood as animals were killed and buried in mud by the millions.

I know some will scoff at Noah’s arc and ask how could he have fit 2 of each species in it. The answer is he didn’t have to; in the Bible, God commanded Noah to take two of each KIND of animal that walked on the earth and breathed through nostrils. This eliminates all insects, fish, whales and birds. Also KIND is different than species. Noah only had to take 2 cats; not 2 lions, 2 tigers, 2 panthers, etc… just two cats. All the species then “evolved” from the basic KIND of animal that they are. BTW this “micro-evolution” is the only proven form of evolution; a variation within the KIND of animal. There is no empirical evidence proving the evolution of on KIND of animal into another KIND.

The bottom line is, yes dinosaurs existed. They walked on the earth before and after the flood. They lived at the same time as man as has all of creation. There is evidence for this as well. In Texas there are some famous dinosaur tracks in rock; in the same rock, crossing the dinosaur tracks are the footprints of man. Think also of how many “old tales” of Dragons there are; many cultures around the world describe these monsters as being huge reptiles. The Bible even has several references to “dragons.” The word Dinosaur didn’t exist when the Bible was first translated to English; it wasn’t used until the mid 1800’s. So if you were a translator working on the King James Version of the Bible in the late 1500’s/early 1600’s what word would you use for a “dinosaur.” The book of Job does a pretty good job of describing a tyrannosaurus (leviathan) and a brachiosaurus (behemoth).

If you dig into the knowledge base of the internet, you’ll find that there is a staggering amount of evidence for a young earth.

can i ask where are all you people getting all this stuff from? i dont remember the bible saying any date the world began.

and 7 "days" is not 7 "days" as we know it.- i have a question for evolutionists- why do monkeys still exist than?...
We no longer inhabit the same territory or compete for the same resources.

INDEED FOSSILS ARE A BEAUTIFUL THING THEY ARE PART OF US ALLL

An Answer to the original question:

The snake that is refered to in the Garden of Eden once had legs. In the original script (forgot if it was Hebrew of Aramaic) it is stated that the snake was the size of a camel. The next part requires a little thinking outside of the box. A camel was the biggest animal that the people knew of when the Torah was recived/written. It expressed that the snake was the biggest thing that anyone had ever seen. Thus giant snake with legs. And I know that that would mean that humans would have had to have lived at the same time as dinosaurs so its not very concrete.

If you dig into the knowledge base of the internet, you’ll find that there is a staggering amount of evidence for a young earth.

Ah yes, the internet - that reliable source of all things factual...

i've heard someone claim that satan planted them in order to lead people away from god.

Ah yes, the internet - that reliable source of all things factual...

Of course if you have difficulty reading something and then deciding if it is factual or fantasy then perhaps you should just turn on the TV (cBS?)and let the liberal media brainwash you.

Your idea (assuming I have it correct): God created the world and then left it to run on its own.

Scientific theory: The world was created by chance and then left to run on its own.

God? Chance? Occam's Razor suggests that including god in the equation makes it unnecessarily complicated and should be presumed an unlikely model unless the simpler one falls is shown to be false.

Since you don't provide any possible way to test your statement, it can't be shown to be wrong.

Actually, I disagree, IMHO, the zillions of circumstances that would have to come together in just the right fashion and order for the world and people to exist is MUCH more complicated than the idea their was a design and plan.

I planned it, created the circumstances so it would happen and then stood back is much less complicated than a whole bunch of stuff at random just happened to come together and just the right points and in the right fashions so as to end up with a result. It is much simpler under an Occam's Razor analysis to create, say Carbon Dioxide, by planning to burn and then actually burning something than to throw a bunch of Carbon and Oxygen atoms in together with some random energy bursts. Design and planning makes things simpler than random coming together.

Additionally, even if you dispute the foregoing, Occam's Razor does NOT hold the "more complex" is always wrong. Rather it holds that the simple must be considered first and then the more complex. I will concede I cannot "prove" the existence of God in a laboratory or with some mathematical computation, but he cannot be disproven either. Occam's Razor does not hold that the inability to prove the more complex establishes the falisity of the more complex. You can't prove it was all just happenstance. Oh, you may be able to prove (in a broad sense) there was a big bang, that planets formed, that evolution took place, but that does not prove that it was all a matter of random occurrences, it is merely proof of "what" happened, not "why."

why it happened is either the product of intelligent design or chance. I submit that intelligent design is a simpler explanation under an Occam's Razor analysis than random chance.

It is very simple. Evolutionists would like you to believe that dinosaurs are "millions of years old" and the earth is "billions of years old" because they need massive amounts of time in order for their theories to be valid.


The theories about the age of the earth were created by geologists, which were not looking for evidence for or against evolution. They found evidence for an old earth.


Modern "dating" methods assume an initial radioactive percent and a constant rate of decay with no outside variables to "taint" the sample. In other words if a specimen were kept under controlled laboratory conditions and the initial radioactive percentage and rate of decay is the same as it is today, then the tests would be accurate. However this is NEVER the case and the amount of tampering with a specimen that occurs in nature completely invalidates all modern dating methods.

First the “initial percentage of radioactive material” has been proven to be changing even today. The percentage of Carbon 14 to normal Carbon has been fluctuating since man first began measuring it. Scientist that first used Carbon 14 dating said that the amount of Carbon 14 should stabilize after 50,000 years after the planet was formed; it was assumed that since the earth was “millions of years old” that this would not be a problem. The fact that the level of Carbon 14 is still fluctuating, according to the original theories, would indicate an earth that is younger than 50,000 years has been completely dismissed by evolutionists.


Actually, it means that we humans are putting carbon into the atmosphere. It's pretty commonly known that with the industrial revolution, we started burning/releasing so much carbon into the air that we can't use carbon dating for samples younger than 150 years.


Additionally, the environmental conditions surrounding a specimen can severely impact its apparent rate of decay. Water running through the ground has been shown to “leach” away certain elements, while leaving other elements behind. One of the elements used in other forms of dating is a certain isotope of lead. This isotope is inherently resistant to leaching while its radioactive counterpart is not. As the radioactive isotope decays it slowly becomes the non-radioactive isotope. But because of water leaching away the radioactive isotope, but leaving its non-radioactive counterpart, the rate of decay appears to be faster.

Each dating method has also been proven to be inaccurate. Specimens taken from the SAME Wooly Mammoth carbon dated from 20,000 years old to more than 40,000 years old. Artifacts dug from the ashes of historical volcanic eruptions have been dated to being millions of years old.


Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement which exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages not much older than 50,000 years. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess C-12 released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess C-14 produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950's, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon [Faure 1998, 294].

In their claims of errors, creationists don't consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the Carbon-14 dating method.

Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar back for more than 11,000 years. It has also been tested on items whose age is known through historical records, such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb [Watson 2001; MNSU n.d.]. Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques [e.g. Bard et al. 1990].

http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm gives some verifications.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html more refutations.


The biggest things evolutionists overlook are natural disasters. A single natural disaster can rearrange the landscape in a hurry. Additionally natural disasters have a drastic affect on all dating methods.

The biggest natural disaster on the face of the earth has been commonly dismissed as a fairy tail, even though there is significant evidence for it. The flood in the days of Noah was a reality. It was not a “localized” flood; the entire earth was covered by water.

If you take a bunch of dirt, rock, sand, etc and add it to water, shake it up and let it settle, the different types of material will layer. This phenomenon is known as Hydrological Sorting. The same thing happened on a global scale, forming the layers of strata that we see today. Most of the fossils were formed at the time of the flood as animals were killed and buried in mud by the millions.

Then you would expect fossils to be sorted by size. They're not. Fossils of bird-sized dinosaurs are in the same strata as fossils of tyrannossaurs. Fossils of mammoths are in higher strata, despite being intermediate in size between the small dinosaurs and the big dinosaurs. And so on - size is not a good predictor of fossil layer.


I know some will scoff at Noah’s arc and ask how could he have fit 2 of each species in it. The answer is he didn’t have to; in the Bible, God commanded Noah to take two of each KIND of animal that walked on the earth and breathed through nostrils. This eliminates all insects, fish, whales and birds. Also KIND is different than species. Noah only had to take 2 cats; not 2 lions, 2 tigers, 2 panthers, etc… just two cats. All the species then “evolved” from the basic KIND of animal that they are. BTW this “micro-evolution” is the only proven form of evolution; a variation within the KIND of animal. There is no empirical evidence proving the evolution of on KIND of animal into another KIND.

The bottom line is, yes dinosaurs existed. They walked on the earth before and after the flood. They lived at the same time as man as has all of creation. There is evidence for this as well. In Texas there are some famous dinosaur tracks in rock; in the same rock, crossing the dinosaur tracks are the footprints of man. Think also of how many “old tales” of Dragons there are; many cultures around the world describe these monsters as being huge reptiles. The Bible even has several references to “dragons.” The word Dinosaur didn’t exist when the Bible was first translated to English; it wasn’t used until the mid 1800’s. So if you were a translator working on the King James Version of the Bible in the late 1500’s/early 1600’s what word would you use for a “dinosaur.” The book of Job does a pretty good job of describing a tyrannosaurus (leviathan) and a brachiosaurus (behemoth).

If you dig into the knowledge base of the internet, you’ll find that there is a staggering amount of evidence for a young earth.

You can also dig into the knowledge base of the internet and find a staggering amount of evidence for UFOs. And for a flat earth. You can also find a staggering amount of proof both of the existence of God and of the non-existence of God. You can find evidence that the moon landings were faked. Heck, you can find evidence of ANYTHING on the internet.

And most of it is BS. "There's lots of people on the internet that say so" is not a valid argument.

It is very simple. Evolutionists would like you to believe that dinosaurs are "millions of years old" and the earth is "billions of years old" because they need massive amounts of time in order for their theories to be valid.

Modern "dating" methods assume an initial radioactive percent and a constant rate of decay with no outside variables to "taint" the sample. In other words if a specimen were kept under controlled laboratory conditions and the initial radioactive percentage and rate of decay is the same as it is today, then the tests would be accurate. However this is NEVER the case and the amount of tampering with a specimen that occurs in nature completely invalidates all modern dating methods.

First the “initial percentage of radioactive material” has been proven to be changing even today. The percentage of Carbon 14 to normal Carbon has been fluctuating since man first began measuring it. Scientist that first used Carbon 14 dating said that the amount of Carbon 14 should stabilize after 50,000 years after the planet was formed; it was assumed that since the earth was “millions of years old” that this would not be a problem. The fact that the level of Carbon 14 is still fluctuating, according to the original theories, would indicate an earth that is younger than 50,000 years has been completely dismissed by evolutionists.

Additionally, the environmental conditions surrounding a specimen can severely impact its apparent rate of decay. Water running through the ground has been shown to “leach” away certain elements, while leaving other elements behind. One of the elements used in other forms of dating is a certain isotope of lead. This isotope is inherently resistant to leaching while its radioactive counterpart is not. As the radioactive isotope decays it slowly becomes the non-radioactive isotope. But because of water leaching away the radioactive isotope, but leaving its non-radioactive counterpart, the rate of decay appears to be faster.

Each dating method has also been proven to be inaccurate. Specimens taken from the SAME Wooly Mammoth carbon dated from 20,000 years old to more than 40,000 years old. Artifacts dug from the ashes of historical volcanic eruptions have been dated to being millions of years old.

The biggest things evolutionists overlook are natural disasters. A single natural disaster can rearrange the landscape in a hurry. Additionally natural disasters have a drastic affect on all dating methods.

The biggest natural disaster on the face of the earth has been commonly dismissed as a fairy tail, even though there is significant evidence for it. The flood in the days of Noah was a reality. It was not a “localized” flood; the entire earth was covered by water.

If you take a bunch of dirt, rock, sand, etc and add it to water, shake it up and let it settle, the different types of material will layer. This phenomenon is known as Hydrological Sorting. The same thing happened on a global scale, forming the layers of strata that we see today. Most of the fossils were formed at the time of the flood as animals were killed and buried in mud by the millions.

1. prove your claims.
2. actually, don't bother, they're based on misunderstanding the science behind carbon dating. not to mention that that's not the only method of dating.

I know some will scoff at Noah’s arc and ask how could he have fit 2 of each species in it. The answer is he didn’t have to; in the Bible, God commanded Noah to take two of each KIND of animal that walked on the earth and breathed through nostrils. This eliminates all insects, fish, whales and birds. Also KIND is different than species. Noah only had to take 2 cats; not 2 lions, 2 tigers, 2 panthers, etc… just two cats. All the species then “evolved” from the basic KIND of animal that they are. BTW this “micro-evolution” is the only proven form of evolution; a variation within the KIND of animal. There is no empirical evidence proving the evolution of on KIND of animal into another KIND.

you do realise that saltwater fish don't survive in fresh water and vice versa? diluting the salinity of the oceans would kill off the fish and mammals in the oceans and adding salinity to lakes would kill off the freshwater fish.

furthermore, the bible states that there were birds on the ark. what did he send out to check for dry land?

The bottom line is, yes dinosaurs existed. They walked on the earth before and after the flood. They lived at the same time as man as has all of creation. There is evidence for this as well. In Texas there are some famous dinosaur tracks in rock; in the same rock, crossing the dinosaur tracks are the footprints of man.
actually, no. they're not the footprints of man. thank you for dredging up "proof" that was debunked in the 20's though.

If you dig into the knowledge base of the internet, you’ll find that there is a staggering amount of evidence for a young earth.
1. the internet is hardly a good source for information.
2. young earth creationists have this habit of getting science terribly, terribly wrong.

you do realise that saltwater fish don't survive in fresh water and vice versa? diluting the salinity of the oceans would kill off the fish and mammals in the oceans and adding salinity to lakes would kill off the freshwater fish.

Not always. Some fish can live in both. Maybe back in the days of the ark they all could.


1. the internet is hardly a good source for information.



I agree, but you wouldn't think so the way people are always demanding "sources" around here like it is some winning point.

Additionally, even if you dispute the foregoing, Occam's Razor does NOT hold the "more complex" is always wrong. Rather it holds that the simple must be considered first and then the more complex.

Which is exactly what I said in my first post about Occam's Razor.

why it happened is either the product of intelligent design or chance. I submit that intelligent design is a simpler explanation under an Occam's Razor analysis than random chance.

And that's precisely where we disagree. You think a series of wildly unlikely circumstances is less likely than a supreme being. I think it's more likely. If you agree with the evolutionary theory, big bang, etc. and say it's "Intelligent Design", that can't be argued against. I disagree, but there's no way to test either statement while we live within the universe.

Even a being coming down to earth who is surrounded by a shining white light who says "look at me - I'm God" wouldn't be evidence in either direction. I'd be more likely to argue "intelligent aliens", while you would argue "God". You simply can't prove either position.

Not one thoroughly evolutionist textbook I've ever had has been able to produce actual photos. Can you?
have you ever had an actual class dedicated exclusively to evolution?

'cuase you know, when i took biology, they focused on more important issues and we only did a short unit on evolution.

Not always. Some fish can live in both. Maybe back in the days of the ark they all could.
that that would mean rapid evolution to suit their current environments and none other.

I agree, but you wouldn't think so the way people are always demanding "sources" around here like it is some winning point.
some sources are good though. in a debate like this, producing a scientific approach to carbon dating and how it works for instance and what it has been used to date that is unrelated to evolution/creation instead of a creationist rant about how carbon 14 dating is wrong simply for the point of disproving evolution.

i like seeing good science and proper terminology, that's usually a sign of a good source. not to mention when they don't bring up things that have been long since debunked/use words like theory incorrectly. (ie calling creationism a theory)

Which is exactly what I said in my first post about Occam's Razor.



And that's precisely where we disagree. You think a series of wildly unlikely circumstances is less likely than a supreme being. I think it's more likely. If you agree with the evolutionary theory, big bang, etc. and say it's "Intelligent Design", that can't be argued against. I disagree, but there's no way to test either statement while we live within the universe.

Even a being coming down to earth who is surrounded by a shining white light who says "look at me - I'm God" wouldn't be evidence in either direction. I'd be more likely to argue "intelligent aliens", while you would argue "God". You simply can't prove either position.

So we agree to disagree and the whole thread is pointless? OK. :D

Of course if you have difficulty reading something and then deciding if it is factual or fantasy then perhaps you should just turn on the TV (cBS?)and let the liberal media brainwash you.

I'm intrigued. Since you know almost nothing about me, you must equate "liberal" to "believes in scientific process". You must also be equating "brainwashing" to "testing one's theory rather than just taking things for granted". Finally, you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, despite available evidence, and despite you not producing anything valid.

Now, I don't know all that much about CBS specifically, but if you think any mainstream news source in the US is particularly liberal, you are very, very mistaken. And if you think the so-called conservative news sources of Fox and CNN are anything but partisan propaganda, you really need to learn to think critically yourself.

So we agree to disagree and the whole thread is pointless? OK. :D

Given those differences in the premise that's correct, and I'm happy with that.

The thread isn't pointless though, because other creationist explanations are rather different.

(Mind you, the thread is probably in fact pointless anyway, but there you go.) :)

It is obvious that things die and leave traces; that is not in dispute. There is also nothing in creationism that says dinosaurs and similar life couldn't exist. Therefore, it's a moot question.
Check out the science at http://www.creationists.org/
i looked up the irst man with a phd on that site (patrick young).
i found another creationist site with a bio.

his area of study and work are completely unrelated to evolution or creation. he has a phd in chemistry (not biochem, not biology) and he works with films... polyester films... he is not in his feiid of expertise when speaking about evolution. if i held a phd in philosophy, would you take my word on astronomical phenomenon? or would you talk to an astrophysicist?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/p_young.asp
^the bio.

Just curious.


Most Conservatives wouldn't even change their underwear, if they didn't have to. And won't until those underwear are so rotten that they fall off in tiny bits.

not for me

Nor I

heretic!


When referring to someone from a different it does not apply. Personally, I am not a Christian...and considering how rigidly unbending Christianity is, I wouldn't want to be one.

not all cristians are creationists...

there is plenty of area open for interpretation in the begininning of genesis
for example the 'days' could be of varying length (god is really timeless)

regardless... most creationists are stubborn and cling to the idea of ignorance and lack of education... however all cristians (true ones anyways) can agree that god did indeed create the world and the interpretaion of how he did it is irrelivant

heresy is only for those who believe in the religion blasphemer would be more apt. as for fossils well god put them there to mess with all the scientist, darwinist's, and anyone who doesn't believe in him. i guess not really to sure oh well ummmmm chocolate chip cookies mmmmmmmm what were we talking about?

You sound like one of those idiotic Seventh Day Adventist or some simuliar fanatics. I believe in Spirituality WITHOUT all the browbeating hysteria. If a religion's accepted parameters are unpleasant, I'm hardly going to support it.

i was reading the previos page... some people are talking as if its fact... LOL

who you kidding...

Before the Fall, there were no mistakes in BBcode.


:sniper:

Two words: Jesus Horses

Just curious.

Slartibartfast.

My mother has had kids in her classes tell her that they were, "Bones from other animals put together to make 'dinosaur' remains"

By far my favourite: A child brought in a video that her church had given her to show my mother. In the video it showed children feeding the dinosaurs by hand and later on in the film it said that God had made the earth in 4004 BC, and put fossils on the Earth to make it appear much older. They said this was in order to "test their faith".

My mother brought the video home, we all had a good laugh

And that kid will get into High School, totally un-prepared for reality will likely wind up a father or pregnant, depending on gender, before they make it halfway through their freshman year.

Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Idiotic Parents

or maybe im not brainwashed...
ever think of that?
or maybe you are brainwashed, ever think of that? this argument could go on for years back and forth, the facts are, christions and the like (Creationists) are supposed to believe the way they do on faith, faith is belief in the absence of supporting evidence and in the face of denying evidence. nobody ever said this god fellow would make it easy. on the other hand, the creationist explanation for fossils is quite simple, the creator can do what ever he darn well pleases, if that means sticking bones in the ground however long ago (creationists don't necesarily believe that life began two thousand years ago or whatever, I don't) pretty much, creationists deny the evidence, darwinists support it and without some sort of god figure there's really n way to figure out whose right or why such and such happened or anything, I mean how do the darwinists know that all the evidence for evolution isn't just some sort of elaborate hoax or a group of amazing coincidences, there are some pretty amazing coincidences involving the bible and historical fact too. it all comes down to faith, which is a notoreously bad argument for anything, and since theres no such thing as undeniable proof in this argument, lets all just live our happy little live until some reasonable argument comes along

I have never figured out why people have never realized that one of the "days" referred to in most religions that have creationalist stories, could conceivably be as long as the deity in question needs. They also forget that the word 'day' sometimes refers to an era...not only a specific and short period of 24 hours. I.E....'back in my day'....

DUH.

The 'day' used could have lasted several billion years...there's no conflict between creational and evolutional views...except the ones PUT there, deliberately, by idiots.

Why don't you people THAT in a sock and suck on it?

I have never figured out why people have never realized that one of the "days" referred to in most religions that have creationalist stories, could conceivably be as long as the deity in question needs. They also forget that the word 'day' sometimes refers to an era...not only a specific and short period of 24 hours. I.E....'back in my day'....

DUH.

The 'day' used could have lasted several billion years...there's no conflict between creational and evolutional views...except the ones PUT there, deliberately, by idiots.

Why don't you people THAT in a sock and suck on it?

Make up your damn mind. Is it
a) earth is several billion years old because you can twist the words of God around
b) God placed dinosaur bones to trick us
c) Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time

Religion is lame . . .

They also forget that the word 'day' sometimes refers to an era...not only a specific and short period of 24 hours. I.E....'back in my day'....

The bible wasn't written in English, mind you.

Make up your damn mind. Is it
a) earth is several billion years old because you can twist the words of God around
b) God placed dinosaur bones to trick us
c) Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time

Religion is lame . . .

Anyone. IF there is a particular sentinence(s) running the universe, I would guess it's WAY too damned busy to have enough spare time for pranks of any kind. Which makes me think that IF he/she/they/it set the ball rolling, as the saying is, he/she/they/it probably just let it run on it's own and only did periodic routine maintenence.

I've often entertained the idea this world may have started out as a terraformed planet...used for someone else's penal colony.

:headbang:

That would explain so damned much, wouldn't it?

The bible wasn't written in English, mind you.

And that was BEFORE Constantine got hold of whatever was left, decided what parts and bits to allow in to "scripture", then it got retranslated into a few more languages.

And every time there's a translation, you translate more than just words, you have to translate ideas and concepts, too. Only sometimes the new language won't support either, so you get stuck having to find the nearest substitute...and sometimes the nearest substitute ain't nowhere near close enough to get the right idea across.

:rolleyes:

Oh, yeaaaah...I'm going to trust that bible they use to be accurate. Riiiight.


Suuure.

I don't think so.

1.not only was the bible translated from hebrew into greek into latin into german into english...
2.but u guys are missing major points, i consider myself a socialist with captialists and christian ties...so fossils are nothing more than bones that have a special name...
3.mainly because scientists use the bones to date the rock and the rock to date the bones...

I do believe in intelligent design (I'm a Christian), but I don't just pretend to be blind to geographical evidence. Keep in mind, there are several theories that try to meld together creationism with evolution/geological stuff.

One of them is the Day-Age theory. Under that, each Biblical "Day" represents a huge geological period. Another is the Gap theory, which allows for a huge span of time between the creation of earth and the creation of The Garden of Eden, sometime around 4,000 BC.

Neither theory is terribly strong, but in my opinion, the Day-Age theory makes much more sense. But that's just my opinion. It may seem far-fetched, but I think its possible.

Or, maybe...just maybe...it's a story. An old story, used for satisfying the curiousity of stupid, illiterate peasants who never had cause to call into question its' veracity.

now that i've read the rest of the arguments here, lets go a little trip

ninety nine time out of a hundred, the internet is wrong, if you use it for evidence without reffering to specific site, you are a fool and are destined to work at McDonalds, don't get me worng, i'm sure mcdonalds is a great place to work but ending every sentence with "Do you want fries with that?" or "Do you want that Super Sized?" has to get monotonous

if radiocarbon dating is used correctly (trained personel, dealing with objects between 50,000 and 150 years old) then it is ninety nine point nine percent acurate

occams razor does NOT state that the simplest answer is the only correct one, or anything close to that, anyway, occams razor should only be applied to situations where differences in complexity are OBVIOUS this is not such a situation.

there is no proof of god? there is no disproof of god, in fact, there is less to disprove god than there is to prove god, check your local comprhensive library (Probably not your local branch)

evolution is far from fact or law, infact, many researchers are turning towards more creationistic views because of many virtual impossibilities and contradictions in the theory

as for the media, dont trust fox, cbs or abc. CNN and NBC however are multinational and require the most balanced views on everything in order to survive as a media source.

nine times out of ten, the media is wrong, if you quote the media without third party confirmation and research, you are a fool, see my comment about fools who trust the internet

reiterating my previous point, you can'tprove evolution and you can't disprove creationism, think of denotation instead if connotation and you'll be one step closer to the truth

liberals, conservatives, can't we all just get along and agree to shoot politicians on site? if you bring politics into a scientific argument, or use words with political conotations in a derogetory fashion, you are a fool, see my previous statements on fools

Well the tradional creationist view is not that God put them their to test our faith or trick us... I have never heard that before that is jo bob redneck answer. Creationist take the Bible litterally. Creationsit believe that dinosaurs were created at same time as man. There is even interaction between dinosaurs and men in the oldest book of the bible "Job." The name of the dinosaur in Job is called a Behemoth, if you read it you will notice it sounds like a Bronchasuraus (sorry about spelling of these words hope im close enough).

The when the flood came it in essence created a massive distortion in the geological column that scientist use to base their carbon dating and is also why we find so many inconsitances in the geological column. The force of the flood cause such natural wonders as the grand canyon and niagra falls. The common example would be instead of a small amount of water carving out the canyon over millions of years a ton of water forming it in just a few days.

After the ark landed and the waters resided there wasn't enough food for a lot of the larger animals to survive along with the fact they were probably a common saught after target by man.

Just thought I'd add this to the discussion.

For an interesting site that explains some of these ideas check out

www.drdino.com

occams razor does NOT state that the simplest answer is the only correct one, or anything close to that, anyway, occams razor should only be applied to situations where differences in complexity are OBVIOUS this is not such a situation.

Nor has anybody here said that it states that.

www.drdino.com

Complete and utter twaddle.

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood? A global flood would predict that all mountain ranges would be equally eroded, since the flood was global.

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), Why do none of these show up?

How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation in New Jersey is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]

How do you explain fossil mineralization? Mineralization is the replacement of the original material with a different mineral.

* Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are quite old - a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this diluvian geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively mineralized.
* Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show quite variable mineralization.
* Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.
* Trilobite remains are usually mineralized - and in different sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different materials.

How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition of remains in a single episode of global flooding?



How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"? The moon is slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy. The earth should have rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day would have been less than 24 hours, and there would have been more days per year. Corals can be dated by the number of "daily" growth layers per "annual" growth layer. Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year. There is an exceedingly strong correlation between the "supposed age" of a wide range of fossils (corals, stromatolites, and a few others -- collected from geologic formations throughout the column and from locations all over the world) and the number of days per year that their growth pattern shows. The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating, and the theory of superposition is a little hard to explain away as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-day-long flood. [Rosenberg & Runcorn, 1975; Scrutton, 1965; Wells, 1963]

How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.

taken from talkorigins.org .

And so on. And so on. And so on.

The only argument left to creationists is that "God can do whatever he wants." Which is not disprovable and has no place in science...

Anyone. IF there is a particular sentinence(s) running the universe, I would guess it's WAY too damned busy to have enough spare time for pranks of any kind. Which makes me think that IF he/she/they/it set the ball rolling, as the saying is, he/she/they/it probably just let it run on it's own and only did periodic routine maintenence.

I've often entertained the idea this world may have started out as a terraformed planet...used for someone else's penal colony.

:headbang:

That would explain so damned much, wouldn't it?

That's not what the bible says. If you're a good Christian/catholic/whatever, you shouldn't twist the holy words of the bible around like that. According to the book, god created everything, down to the last detail.

holy crap, religion is lame . . . the people who follow it can't even agree on a single stance on an issue. It's also like they don't know anything about the bible either. They're twisting around the words of God like it's their little plaything. Yea, anyone who doesn't believe in creationism and that God created everything 6000 years ago is going to hell. You're denying the word of God.

I'm glad I'm an atheist, because you religious people seem confused most of the time.

Well the tradional creationist view is not that God put them their to test our faith or trick us... I have never heard that before that is jo bob redneck answer. Creationist take the Bible litterally. Creationsit believe that dinosaurs were created at same time as man. There is even interaction between dinosaurs and men in the oldest book of the bible "Job." The name of the dinosaur in Job is called a Behemoth, if you read it you will notice it sounds like a Bronchasuraus (sorry about spelling of these words hope im close enough).

The when the flood came it in essence created a massive distortion in the geological column that scientist use to base their carbon dating and is also why we find so many inconsitances in the geological column. The force of the flood cause such natural wonders as the grand canyon and niagra falls. The common example would be instead of a small amount of water carving out the canyon over millions of years a ton of water forming it in just a few days.

After the ark landed and the waters resided there wasn't enough food for a lot of the larger animals to survive along with the fact they were probably a common saught after target by man.

Just thought I'd add this to the discussion.

Just a few quibbles:

- Behemoth comes from the bible (according to the etymology at www.dictionary.com, it's most likely a hippopotamus). Brachiosaurus and brontosaurus are latin, coming from the latin words for "arm" and "thunder", respectively. Any connection in the sounds of the words is accidental.

- The geological column isn't massively distorted. There are some inconsistencies, most of which can be explained by the concept of sequence stratigraphy - check out Peter Vail's works on the topic over the past three decades if you are planning on becoming a geologist.

- The grand canyon and niagara falls are created by very different methods. In neither case would a global flood cause those features.

- The third part I don't understand. Is the claim that there were more species that are now extinct?

u cant use science n a argument against religion because they are not inside the same perspective...ur ecological data is intruging but due the historical significance of even the earliest religions and cultures, nearly all speak in unity of a major flood before creation or after the fall of man...and christians and catholics r da same thing...one is just more evil...and lets not forget that semites(hebrews and the early jews)wrote about the flood not the christian church...of course most are extinct...we killed them...

wow, as i was typing more stuff piled up to dispute through the gales of laughter at a poor souls misinformed (soon to be rectified) status... as soon as i stop laughing... any minute now...


radioCarbon dationg has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH the geological column, which could and was NOT distorted by any flood, noah's or otherwise

radiocarbon dating uses isotopes of carbon found in all organic and previously organic matter that have a known rate of decay and a known concentration in living beings, when the being dies, the carbon isotope begins to decay giveing a fairly acurate (within limits) date that the being died

on the Great Flood. while it was and is the biggest natural disaster in recorded history, Noah's flood was probably far from the world spanning national disaster described by many less informed than myself. the flood is described in the bible as covering the highest mountains adn so on and so forth. it is reasonable to conclude that Noah is talking about the highest mountains he knows of and has seen, a flood that covered mount everest would require more water than can be found in two lightyears of earth and would leave unmistakable signs that woud be easily visible to the naked eye from the ground. the highest mountain in the area was (if i remember correctly) Mount Sinai, far from a big mountain in the relative terms of the world, made all the smaller by its location within a vast basin that is now mostly made up of the medditeranean sea, which evidence proves did not exist until around the time of noahs flood, it is believed that the flood was the result of an earthquake that opened an inlet to te ocean which in turn caused a horific floodthat wiped out civilazation as was known at the time (Except for noah and his brood and any body lucky enough to be in a sturdy boat at the time)

as for the two animals of each type and all that semantics nonsense, READ THE BIBLE BEFORE YOU ARGUE WITH IT OR AGAINST IT. the bible mentions specific types of animals, such as those that were considered suitable for offerings and those suitable for eating and several specific types out side of that, doves for instance. also, except for the specific non food and non sacrificial animals, he was told to bring numbers like six and eight. read the darn bible before you start arguing over it, you might find it says both more and less than you think and that it probably makes more sense than you believe

u cant use science n a argument against religion because they are not inside the same perspective...ur ecological data is intruging but due the historical significance of even the earliest religions and cultures, nearly all speak in unity of a major flood before creation or after the fall of man...and christians and catholics r da same thing...one is just more evil...and lets not forget that semites(hebrews and the early jews)wrote about the flood not the christian church...

And there is evidence of a great flood - simply not one that covered the *entirety* of the Earth. Would it have affected all of the areas in which the early religions with flood myths would have been? Yes. So they would have *thought* it was the entire world.

wow, as i was typing more stuff piled up to dispute through the gales of laughter at a poor souls misinformed (soon to be rectified) status... as soon as i stop laughing... any minute now...


radioCarbon dationg has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH the geological column, which could and was NOT distorted by any flood, noah's or otherwise

radiocarbon dating uses isotopes of carbon found in all organic and previously organic matter that have a known rate of decay and a known concentration in living beings, when the being dies, the carbon isotope begins to decay giveing a fairly acurate (within limits) date that the being died

on the Great Flood. while it was and is the biggest natural disaster in recorded history, Noah's flood was probably far from the world spanning national disaster described by many less informed than myself. the flood is described in the bible as covering the highest mountains adn so on and so forth. it is reasonable to conclude that Noah is talking about the highest mountains he knows of and has seen, a flood that covered mount everest would require more water than can be found in two lightyears of earth and would leave unmistakable signs that woud be easily visible to the naked eye from the ground. the highest mountain in the area was (if i remember correctly) Mount Sinai, far from a big mountain in the relative terms of the world, made all the smaller by its location within a vast basin that is now mostly made up of the medditeranean sea, which evidence proves did not exist until around the time of noahs flood, it is believed that the flood was the result of an earthquake that opened an inlet to te ocean which in turn caused a horific floodthat wiped out civilazation as was known at the time (Except for noah and his brood and any body lucky enough to be in a sturdy boat at the time)

as for the two animals of each type and all that semantics nonsense, READ THE BIBLE BEFORE YOU ARGUE WITH IT OR AGAINST IT. the bible mentions specific types of animals, such as those that were considered suitable for offerings and those suitable for eating and several specific types out side of that, doves for instance. also, except for the specific non food and non sacrificial animals, he was told to bring numbers like six and eight. read the darn bible before you start arguing over it, you might find it says both more and less than you think and that it probably makes more sense than you believe

If Noah only saved certain animals, then wouldn't that mean that every animal that wasn't on the boat will die? If that's the case, then every animal that is living today must have been ON the ark since they survived. That's a wholeeeeeeeee lottaaaaa animals on that boat. Unless, of course, god wasn't successful in his "purge the world" attempt and some animals still managed to survive. But that can never happen since God is perfect in everything he does.

Check out the science at http://www.creationists.org/

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, had to get that in there.

Those "PhD-holding physicists, biologists, and chemists at Creationists.org" sound like the "I'm a real doctor" on infomercials to me.

Ooh! Ooh! Attack my opinions! Holier than though!

Here guys, my high school teacher wrote a book on evolution for 9-12 year olds... so even creationists will get it!
http://pubs.nsta.org/galapagos/resources/page2.html

If Noah only saved certain animals, then wouldn't that mean that every animal that wasn't on the boat will die? If that's the case, then every animal that is living today must have been ON the ark since they survived. That's a wholeeeeeeeee lottaaaaa animals on that boat. Unless, of course, god wasn't successful in his "purge the world" attempt and some animals still managed to survive. But that can never happen since God is perfect in everything he does.

there's two flaws in your reasoning here that tell me A) your not an actual thinker as your name suggests and B) you've never read the bible, which I clearly mentioned as a must before arguing for or against the bible and not ending up a dumbass, if you were not a dumbass then you would have A) read the bible before arguing with it and therefore B) realised that it never mentions 'Purging all life' or any other such nonsense, only all human life, and you can't really argue foror against that happening because theres no proof for or against and enough people were on the Arc (read the bible and you'll understand that it wasn't just noah and his family, the dude was pushing nine hundred years old thats a wholeeeeeeeee lottaaaaa family he's got there) that incest wouldn't be a problem, so his purge of all life wasn't succesful because it didn't exist, it was never even attempted.

also, for creationists, if god created all the animals in the first place, what's to stop him from doing it again? and making noah carry all those animals on the arc was just a test of faith or what not? or for evolutionists, all the animals could have 'evolved' from the ones on the arc.

not every animal would die anyway, fish and mosquitos and flys and whales and eels and all that other stuff would survive a flood, if you were an 'actual thinker' you would have realised that an even mildly intelligent god would not go about 'purging the world' by a flood, even creationists know that

I enjoyed creationists.org, the 'pictures of a fresh dino print' have two major flaws, 1) i could make better dino prints with my shoes, and 2) sptember and august are wildly seperate months, both of which (Being in a RAIN FOREST) are wet season, the foot prints are interestingly dry, especially given the fact that they were 1 day old (and have therefore, as a result of being in a rainforest endured at least on rain storm) and by a river

the rest of the site doesn't even deserve debunking

same as 'evil'ution, a satanic lie.