Secular Scientists and a Young Earth?

did you expect it to prove the earth is young? it is "evidence for a young earth based on observable natural phenomenon".[/QUOTE]

EF No it isn't. If true it simply means that Niagara falls is young.

 

Even if you can prove the age of Niagara Falls, this has no bearing on the age of the earth. You can prove that I am 30 years old but that doesn't mean the earth cannot be older than thirty years!

 

yes it is. not proof, but evidence at least. do you know of any rivers with billions of years of errosion apparent? no?

 

if you claim to be 900 billion years old but your face is not wrinkled...

 

First, the theory of evolution says nothing about the age of rivers.

Second, nothing in geology would expect you to have billion year old rivers. You are knocking over a strawman.

 

Nothing is claimed to be "900 billion years old." The universe is about 13.7 billion years old and the earth is about 4.56 billion years old.

 

Meatros - your post was a perfect example of "I'm not going to address any of these details - I can't hear you and that makes me feel good".

But it has no substance.

As for Abiogenesis and your failed attempt to distance your faith in evoltuionism from the TESTABLE realm of the claims of abiogenesis --

Bob

 

>>>>>>Clearly it does Not take billions of years in the lab experiment to
#1. “observe” a sample of amino acids forming life-building proteins
#2. and then to “observe” the proteins assemble themselves into cell structures
#3. and then to “observe” the cell structures assemble themselves into a living functioning viable cell – capable of all functions including reproduction WITHOUT the addition of other living cells into the environment.<<<<<<<

But maybe the above process is NOT how life got started. I believe that the consensus of opinion is that the above is unlikely to have been what actually happened.

 

Bob, I'm just tired of your intellectual dishonesty. Your strawmen, while impressive to you (and probably you alone), grow tiring to answer.

You have a cartoon version of evolution that is inaccurate and ignorant of the facts. You are also bigoted towards those who actually know about evolution (as you can tell by calling it "evolutionism", which suggests that in addition to your ignorance of evolution you also have ignorance of religion).

In short, you don't *really* want to be corrected or to learn about evolution, you want to support your bigotry through misinformation. I don't see the point in addressing your strawmen.

 

Meatros - rather than posturing and ranting about your displeasure with the fact that I do not approve of the mythologies of evolutionism, why not respond to "the point"?

Surely you know that a creationist "does not agree with you" - that should not cause you to lose focus and fail to address points objectively.

Surely you see the point raised about the fact that in the DETAILS of the abiogenesis thread posted here NO case was made for chiral purity OR for life building proteins formed from amino acids OR for self-organizing proteins OR for self-organizing cell structure. Futher NO case could be made for the self-organizing myths of evolutionism NOT requiring that SAME self-organizing prinicple to GET the process of life going at all.

By ignoring the substance of the post - you are simply letting off steam instead of advancing your point.

But now - back to Joshua's main point.

Bob

 

Hence - the REAL benefit of this board is to give Christian evolutionists a chance to "SHOW" that evolutionism's mythologies do not "corrupt the Gospel of Christ".

But every time we "try to get that discussion going" the evolutionists "refuse" to exegete the text of scripture - refuse to observe "the details" if they do not favor their myths.

In fact they get offended that there is any interest at all in debating that point.

You would think that we could do "better" as a Christian group.

</font>[/QUOTE]Joshua - where are you?

Are you interested in responding to this point - that you raised in your opening post?

Bob

 

The problem I'm having is we aren't even speaking the same language, so how can I address any of your strawmen?

You speak of mythologies of evolution; clearly a rhetorical term designed to offend those who accept evolution as a valid theory. Then you improperly add an "ism" to evolution, in a further rhetorical attempt to insult those who accept the theory.

Evolution is only a theory, it's not a belief system. You are obfuscating terms.

Here is the definition of myth.

This does not fit the theory of evolution at all!

"ism" you *might* be able to get away with definitionally speaking, but the way you use it is to counter the "ism" at the end of creationism. It's your way of throwing mud at the person who disagrees with you. It's childish, as is your regarding evolution as a 'myth'. If you want to say it's a hypothesis, fine go right ahead, but you are acting like a five year old who knows how to use intellectually dishonest rhetoric whose SOLE intention is provoking the side that disagrees with you. I suggest you grow up and quit using such rhetoric.

You are completely hypocritical in accusing me of not addressing the point. You fail to understand that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

You keep ranting about how your idea of a Christian (not God's or Jesus's), can not accept evolution.
So I have to ask you; what makes you think that you can give such a divine commandment?

 

Sadly - you are mistaken.

In every complete study of the system of evolution - abiogenesis is presented EVEN by our athiest evolutionist friends. The argument that "no self-organizing principle allowing life to evolve is needed in evolutionism" is just not true. IN FACT - evolutionism PROPOSES RNA life forms (abiogenesis thank you very much) are the parent forms for DNA life forms. Modification with descent (according to the "stories" of evolutionism) BEGINS with the products of abiogenesis THAT "you say" are not part of the "story".

Here is "a story" told on one of Galation's recommended sites.

Did you want them to just come right out "and confess" before you would "believe" that the story was a myth?

Bob

 

(Uncloaking off the port nacelles)

I'm puzzled as to why you think the age of Niagara Falls is evidence of anything other than the age of Niagara Falls. No modern geologist thinks that the Niagara River is "billions", or even millions of years old. The geological history of that area is well understood; Niagara Falls has only existed since the end of the last ice age and is not "evidence" of a "young earth" in any way.

(cloaking)

yes it is. not proof, but evidence at least. do you know of any rivers with billions of years of errosion apparent? no? </font>[/QUOTE]

 

yes it is. not proof, but evidence at least. do you know of any rivers with billions of years of errosion apparent? no? </font>[/QUOTE]EF Lol, if you can't see the flaw in your own argument when it's pointed out to you, where else can we go with the discussion?

 

There are none so blind as those that will not see Bob. As I've said, evolution stands on it's own legs, not abiogenesis's.

In the Galation text you quoted, did you fail to understand that it was about "biologists" and not "evolutionists", or are you going to lump them altogether to. How about instead of using the term "scientist" or "biologist" or even "educated person" you use the term "evolutionist"?

You also failed to recognize your ignorance in regards to the meaning of the word "mythology". SO either you *truly* do not understand the word or you are breaking a commandment. Which is it Bob?

I also find it highly amusing that you remain silent in this thread.

Where's your condemnation of anything other then geocentricism?

 

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence

it is evidence if i choose to use it as such.

your acceptance of such evidence does not alter reality...

strange that the ice age, which preserved so perfectly, so many fossils would wipe the face of america clean, so that all the rivers would have to start again... but its your made up fantasy about stuff that you could never know for sure without a time machine... so you can make up whatever you like.

and further, stronger evidence can be found in The Bible... but i am sure you are familar (if not in agreement) with that.

 

It is nothing if no-one else recognizes it, and the age of Niagara Falls is irrelevant to the age of the earth.

You are certainly free to use it to prop up your own belief system, but it is not scientific evidence of a young earth. Sorry.

Reality is what we observe with our senses. What we observe of the world is entirely discordant with the idea of a 6,000 year-old earth, Niagara Falls notwithstanding.

I'm sorry, but I cannot respond to this paragraph because I can make no grammatical nor semantical sense of it. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Yes, I am familiar with what is in the Bible, but I do not regard it as a science textbook. God is not deceptive, and if the world He created appears to our senses (God-given), on so many levels and in such massive detail, to be old, then I can only accept that His works speak the truth about the world and it really is as it appears to be. Very old and with a specific and detailed history.

 

Where is our "Silent Joshua"??

Richard Dawkins "seems" to "get the point" EVEN though or evolutionist friends here - pretend they can't see it.

Dawkins can barely conseal his disgust for the art of claiming that something is "false" and then believing in it "symbolically" after it has already been declared by you to be "untrustworthy".

As said before - BOTH the Christians and the Atheist SEE this point of "replacement" clearly.

Evolutionism is a replacement for Christianity.

Bob

 

When God speaks figuratively, it is as true as when He speaks literally.

That shouldn't be a surprise for a Christian.