Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story

[davidgeminden]

Hi UTEOTW,

Follow the quote below I repeated it with my comments interpersed in it.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
There was another point regarding Ham's disparaging of presuppositions I forgot to make in my haste.

There is nothing wrong with what he calls presuppostions. Let me put it this way. Almost everything in life that you can learn about require a learning curve. You do not start out knowing all of the facts. Instead, you build new knowledge upon what you have already learned.

But Ham is saying that science should not operate like that. Despite the fact the the current acceptance of an old earth, an old universe and evolution grew out of observation of the evidence at a time when these things were NOT accepted, Ham says that all these things should be thrown out the window. Each new fossil discovered must be judged all by itself, it cannot be related to other fossils or to modern animals. Diseases should be studied in a vacuum and how evolution may shape the course of diseases today should not be considered. Each astronomical object should be judged based on how it is right now with no attempt to see what processes may have acted to give it its properties nor should it be compared with other like objects. Geology finds should not use other geology finds to try and understand what happened or how something formed, we should just accept things as they are. How devestating to the ability to do scientific work.

I do clean coal research. Should I not be able to build on what other people have done before? Is there something wrong with accepting the results of what they have learned and trying to build upon it? Should I be forced to reinvent everything I do?

Put differently...Is there something wrong in expecting that when I get into my car that putting the key into the slot on the steering column will start the car, that the right most pedal will supply gas to the engine, that the gas will combust in the engine to move me, that the middle pedal will slow the car and so? All things I have learned either from being told or from empirical testing. Is it wrong to expect the sun to come up in the east just because it did yesterday? There has been nothing shown to indicate that there is anything wrong with presuppositions. In fact, we would all be clueless if we could not use our presuppositions.

Member
Member # 3409
UTEOTW

posted November 11, 2003 08:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was another point regarding Ham's disparaging of presuppositions I forgot to make in my haste.

There is nothing wrong with what he calls presuppostions. Let me put it this way. Almost everything in life that you can learn about require a learning curve. You do not start out knowing all of the facts. Instead, you build new knowledge upon what you have already learned.

But Ham is saying that science should not operate like that.

My Response:
>>>That is an incorrect statement about Ken Ham. I have never heard or read anything where Ken Ham rejects the idea of using new knowledge to build upon previously learned knowledge. Are you grandstanding and bluffing?<<<

Despite the fact the the current acceptance of an old earth, an old universe and evolution grew out of observation of the evidence at a time when these things were NOT accepted, Ham says that all these things should be thrown out the window. Each new fossil discovered must be judged all by itself, it cannot be related to other fossils or to modern animals.

My Response:
>>>If by "related" you mean through the macroevolution theory, then you are assuming macroevolution is a proven fact when it is actually a theory. Macroevolution has not obtained sufficient evidence to qualify it as proven fact. Honest scientists readily admit that it is just a theory.<<<

Diseases should be studied in a vacuum and how evolution may shape the course of diseases today should not be considered.

My Response:
>>>Ken Ham does not teach studying diseases in a vacuum. If you will read the material published by Answers in Genesis, you will find material written by scientists, who are literal Bible creationists, that work in the medical fields, biological fields and genetics who do take into account mutations, natural selection, adaptation, and speciation in their work. By the way, if you have read their material you find that mutations, natural selection, adaptation, and speciation are also an integral part of the literal Bible creation model that they hold to. I believe those things do not produce macroevolution. I believe the idea that they produce macroevolution is theoretical extrapolation, not proven fact. I believe modern experiments show that they only produce variation in the kinds, not creation of new kinds. I believe they do not change one kind into another kind. In addition to evolutionary literature that I have read over the years, the following is a list of sources that have helped me in formulating my conclusions.
** Darwin's Black Box" written by Michael J. Behe
** "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" written by Michael Denton
** See at least the following sections in the Q&A index at the "Answers in Genesis" website: Genetics, Information Theory, Natural Selection, Origin of Life, Philosophy, Embryonic Recapitulation and Similarities, and Fossils. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/philosophy.asp
** AIG's Features Archive at http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/postings.asp
** AIG's Feedback Archive at http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/default.asp
** Material at the Institute for Creation Research at http://www.icr.org/
** The True.Origin Archive at http://www.trueorigins.org/
** Origins at http://www.origins.org/
** Geoscience Research Institute at http://www.grisda.org/
** Creation Safaris's "Creation-Evolution Headlines" section at http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev1103.htm
** Global Flood.org at http://www.globalflood.org/
I assume you are already familiar with some of the above sources, even though, I have listed them for you. By the way, I often read evolutionary literature where they equivocate mutation, natural selection, adaptation, and speciation with macroevolution.<<<

Each astronomical object should be judged based on how it is right now with no attempt to see what processes may have acted to give it its properties nor should it be compared with other like objects.

My Response:
>>>I do not believe your above statement is accurate about Ken Ham. You are making astronomers who are literal Bible creationist look like complete idiots. They have to study all known processes that could possibly affect the properties of astronomical objects, and they have to compare other like objects. Your statement above is getting awfully close to bluffing and grandstanding.<<<

Geology finds should not use other geology finds to try and understand what happened or how something formed, we should just accept things as they are.

My Response:
>>>Again, I believe your above statement is inaccurate about Ken Ham and about Geologists who are literal Bible creationists. Geologists that are literal Bible creationists do study other geological features to determine if they reveal information about the condition of the particular formation that they are studying. Your statement above is getting awfully close to bluffing and grandstanding.<<<

How devestating to the ability to do scientific work.

My Response:
>>>Again, Your statement above is getting awfully close to bluffing and grandstanding. There are scientists today who are literal Bible creationists doing excellent research work. History records numerous famous scientists who were literal Bible creationists. You can find some of their names listed on some of the literal Bible creation websites, that I listed earlier.<<<

I do clean coal research. Should I not be able to build on what other people have done before? Is there something wrong with accepting the results of what they have learned and trying to build upon it? Should I be forced to reinvent everything I do?

My Response:
>>> Again, Your statement above is getting awfully close to bluffing and grandstanding. I have never read anything by Ken Ham that said you have to reinvent anything. Ken Ham does accept previous results if they are proven: however he questions unproven hypothesis's and theories about results.<<<

Put differently...Is there something wrong in expecting that when I get into my car that putting the key into the slot on the steering column will start the car, that the right most pedal will supply gas to the engine, that the gas will combust in the engine to move me, that the middle pedal will slow the car and so? All things I have learned either from being told or from empirical testing. Is it wrong to expect the sun to come up in the east just because it did yesterday? There has been nothing shown to indicate that there is anything wrong with presuppositions. In fact, we would all be clueless if we could not use our presuppositions.

My Response:
>>> Again, Your statement above is getting awfully close to bluffing and grandstanding. Literal Bible creationists do not say that use of presuppositions is wrong. In fact, Ken Ham teaches that using different combinations of presuppositions is normal scientific research used in good theorizing, and interpreting of empirical data. This process is a necessary part of making new discoveries in all fields of science. By the way, this process also helps you discover which presuppositions are correct.<<<


A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden

davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net

"Jackelope Logic" & "Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism"
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Out of all the alledged presuppositions that are listed above, some of them - such as a presuppostion that there is no God - are false. Science does not make assumptions about God in the way it operates. However, when it comes to making assumptions about the laws of nature, there science can be found to be guilty.

Scientists generally assume that the laws of nature are constant over time.

This is not to say that scientists take this for granted. They check this in every possible way, and if you can think of a reasonable way to check this they have overlooked, you could probably get some recognition for original research if you put that into effect.

For example, scientists carefully examine the spectograms of distant stars vastly removed from us by time and space, carefully looking for any sign that the chemistry or atomic nature of matter is different in different spaces and in bygone eras. Results: they are the same wherever detected, except . . . . there are some reports of a variation in one part per 4-5 million in what is called the "fine structure constant" in some galaxies about 10 billion light years away or so. (I'm working from memory, these numbers are approximate).

The speed of rotation of galaxies is pretty constant way out there and so is the behavior of light in gravitational lenses.

When scientists analyze the over 200,000 annual layers of ice deposited at Greenland or at Antarctica they are careful to compare their annual counts with known phenomenon such as historically known volcanic eruptions and, when feasible, carbon 14 dating of entrained organic material or even the trapped air with its CO2.

They count the agreement between the annual count and the timing from these factors as colloborating evidence that indeed, both counts are correct. The more that independent methods of timing ancient events keep giving the same answer, the more likely it is that they are, after all, correct.

When scientists count the annual rings of trees, matching them up to count backwards over 20,000 years, it seems a little perverse to say that they are depending on a shaky hypothesis of uniformitarianism to believe they have documented a 20,000 year history. What kind of crazy non-uniformitarian environment could possibly allow for the steady, normal accumulation of tree rings?

There is one person who has posted that the greatly troubled environment - with many false winters and summers right after the flood - would have caused extra rings. All the extra thousands of them. Abnormal, stressful environments like that would never cause abnormally prolific growth as needed to create the current annular ring record we have. They would hinder the growth of trees.

And strangely enough, the same ring counts correlate with carbon 14 dating methods.

As for the evidence of common descent, if you are fortunate enough to have your eye teeth still, run your finger along the lower gumline and feel the abnormally large roots for those teeth.

How long ago do you suppose it was that your physical ancestral species had teeth to match the size of those roots in his mouth?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Scientists generally assume that the laws of nature are constant over time.

Yes, like the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. They seem to get them backwards most of the time. New evolutionary species are being created all the time. New matter comes into this world. New energy. And talk of increasing entropy; well, everything is just getting hunky-dory. The world is getting better and better. Degeneration is on the down-swing. Pretty soon it won't even exist at all if evolution continues it's upward flow to perfection.
This humanistic evolution is nothing more than scientism, a false religion, that opposes faith in the true Creator.

For example, scientists carefully examine the spectograms of distant stars vastly removed from us by time and space, carefully looking for any sign that the chemistry or atomic nature of matter is different in different spaces and in bygone eras. Results: they are the same wherever detected, except . . . . there are some reports of a variation in one part per 4-5 million in what is called the "fine structure constant" in some galaxies about 10 billion light years away or so. (I'm working from memory, these numbers are approximate).

Did they remember to ask God first how old the stars in the universe "were made to look" when He created them on the fourth day of creation? Everything, even the stars with their shining lights, was created with an appearance of age. I guess that would throw all their calculations off wouldn't it? 10 billion light years would only be, let's say 6,000 to 10,000 years. I think your a bit off in your calculations.

When scientists analyze the over 200,000 annual layers of ice deposited at Greenland or at Antarctica they are careful to compare their annual counts with known phenomenon such as historically known volcanic eruptions and, when feasible, carbon 14 dating of entrained organic material or even the trapped air with its CO2.

They count the agreement between the annual count and the timing from these factors as colloborating evidence that indeed, both counts are correct. The more that independent methods of timing ancient events keep giving the same answer, the more likely it is that they are, after all, correct.

I hope, that in all their calculations and comparisons to historical events, that they did not forget one of the most important historical events--THE FLOOD. That one event alone would have changed all their calculations drastically. It had drastic climatological effects upon the world.

When scientists count the annual rings of trees, matching them up to count backwards over 20,000 years, it seems a little perverse to say that they are depending on a shaky hypothesis of uniformitarianism to believe they have documented a 20,000 year history. What kind of crazy non-uniformitarian environment could possibly allow for the steady, normal accumulation of tree rings?

Can you show me this 20,000 year tree. I'd be interested in seeing it. Since the time I graduated in Forestry until now, I have not heard of such a thing.

As for the evidence of common descent, if you are fortunate enough to have your eye teeth still, run your finger along the lower gumline and feel the abnormally large roots for those teeth.

How long ago do you suppose it was that your physical ancestral species had teeth to match the size of those roots in his mouth?

I don't know about you. But it wasn't much more than fifty years ago that the good Lord gave me mine. There isn't one part of my body that I share with an ape. No siree! This body is made in the image and the likeness of God, and never was in the animal kingdom at all. That's an insult to my intelligence--insinuating that I am an animal. I don't know where you came from; but my great grandaddy sure wasn't any ape.
DHK

 

[HankD]

run your finger along the lower gumline and feel the abnormally large roots for those teeth.

"abnormally large" :

says who and how do you/they know what is "normal"
vs "abnormal" for the human species?

Assuming the roots are "abnormal" for the teeth, why is that so? Is it the result of evolution and if so does the evolutionary process result in "abnormal" changes?

HankD

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by DHK:
Yes, like the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. They seem to get them backwards most of the time.

I fail to understand the relevance of your reference to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo. Energy is conserved and entropy is increasing. What is the problem? Are you going to the tired, old 2LOT objection that has been shown to not be true too many times to count? The 2LOT only says that the total entropy must decrease, local decreases in entropy are allowed. And entropy is not the same as disorder in the layman's sense.

Did they remember to ask God first how old the stars in the universe "were made to look" when He created them on the fourth day of creation? Everything, even the stars with their shining lights, was created with an appearance of age. I guess that would throw all their calculations off wouldn't it? 10 billion light years would only be, let's say 6,000 to 10,000 years. I think your a bit off in your calculations.

Ahhhhhh! So you answer it all with "an appearance of age." Let's see, all the stars of the universe were created with an apperance of age. Mind you, not all the same age, exactly. We we look at the cosmos, we se stars that formed at many different periods in the history of the universe. We can see new stars forming even today. So it is not just the stars who have an "appearance of age," but that we can also trace through the history. We can tell when stars were born. When they died. We can see galaxies forming. We can see the compostion of the universe changing with time as supernovae litter the universe with star ashes. So all this was faked? There is a whole history written in the stars that never happened? All these things were created to only look as if all this had happened? Everything was carefully coordinated such that it would appear that there was a 13.5 billion year old universe with a plausible history of how everything got to where it is today? Amazing!

And the earth too! The sun, the comets, and the asteroids were all created with the exact same age imprinted into their structure. An age that does not actually exist. Everytime a rock formed over the last "6000 - 10000" years it too was imprinted with an age that tells of a history that never happened. Rocks that take hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of years to form instead formed in a few short years (I am speaking of rocks that have been formed since the formation of the world, not the original rocks) , or less, then their chemistry was changed to make it look like a much longer time and the radiological signature was changed to make them look millions of years old. Fault lines that can be measured and appear to have been moving for millions of years, all that was faked. It is not real. The ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years, they were made in the last couple of thousand with most of the layers already there and telling a history that never happened. I guess that all the transitional species that we have dug up were never actually alive, either? Rocks that just happen to look like bones, perhaps?

In the end, all you are doing is admitting that the evidence shows an ancient creation, you simply choose not to accept it. I cannot accept that God would created such a detailed and intertwined history that never happened.

There isn't one part of my body that I share with an ape. No siree! This body is made in the image and the likeness of God, and never was in the animal kingdom at all. That's an insult to my intelligence--insinuating that I am an animal.

But sir, you are an animal. Nothing personal, it just just a matter of some specific characteristics of your cells. And you share your entire body with apes because you are in actuality an ape. Again, no offense, but that is just the way the ball bounces. Look at your body. A thin covering of hair. Five dexterious fingers with fingerprints and with fingernails instead of claws. Only two lactal nipples and located on your chest instead of your abdomen. Prehensile toes. Your five pointed molars with a specifically shaped crevasse. You will even die if exposed to the toxin of the male funnel spider. You share a very specific mutation that prevents the formation of Vitamin C in your body. These are all individually traits that are rarely if ever shared outside of the apes and primates. Certainly no animal that is not an ape of a primate shares several of these traits. But you share them all with your fellow apes and primates. So even if you belief that you were literally formed from dirt 6000 years ago, you were made an ape. Though an ape with a soul in the image of God.

 

[HankD]

And you share your entire body with apes because you are in actuality an ape.

I beg your pardon.

Speakest thou for thyself John Alden?

I have never seen an ape reading a Bible or praying.

HankD

 

[UTEOTW]

I have.

But let me turn this around.

Are you an ape?

Are you a primate?

Are you a placental mammal?

Are you a tetrapod?

Are you a craniate?

Are you a chordate?

Are you an animal?

Are you a eucaryote?

Are you alive?

Where do you draw that arbitrary line? For that is what it is, arbitrary. You share all the characteristics of all of these. You are all of the above. Any line is of your own hand. Unless you avoid drawing a line by claiming that you are not a living creature. And I do not think anyone would believe that if you tried.

 

[DHK]

The human mind is very complex, and yet at the same time very similar to some of the most complex computers of our time. We have a hard drive in our brain where all our information is stored. We have memory. Sometimes our ability to recall the data that we have stored on our hard drive does not function as well as we would like. There are many that need their hard drives cleaned up and reformatted, but that's another topic.
I suppose the question is then: Did man evolve from a computer. Or maybe vice-versa?
As ridiculous a question that may be, it is the same thing that you are proposing. Just because two different things share like characteristics does mean that they evolved one from the other. In the case that I cited it was man that made the computer. It was his "invention" made with the intellect that God had given him.
In the example that you tried to give us, there was no evolution that took place. God created man in his own image and likeness. He also created the apes. There is one creator. The fact that He can create man and animals with certain characteristics common to each other in no way supports evolution, but rather supports One Maker who designed everything after His own will.
DHK

 

[HankD]

Dear UTEOTW,

I am not an animal. I can't explain it but I dont feel one iota of kinship with my dog.

Suppose one (Jeffrey Dahmer) were to kill and eat his neighbor and tell the police, "well I was hungry, he was an animal so I killed and ate him" would it fly?

HankD

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by HankD:
Dear UTEOTW,

I am not an animal. I can't explain it but I dont feel one iota of kinship with my dog.

Suppose one (Jeffrey Dahmer) were to kill and eat his neighbor and tell the police, "well I was hungry, he was an animal so I killed and ate him" would it fly?

HankD

Did you ever hear about the game "20 questions?" You give a clue about what you are thinking of - your clue is animal, vegetable, or mineral. Then your respondent is allowed up to 20 questions that you must answer "yes" or "no" and then he tries to guess your unknown entity . .


If you are thinking of George Washington, you must give the clue "animal" rather than Vegetable or Mineral.

So there.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I fail to understand the relevance of your reference to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo. Energy is conserved and entropy is increasing. What is the problem? Are you going to the tired, old 2LOT objection that has been shown to not be true too many times to count? The 2LOT only says that the total entropy must decrease, local decreases in entropy are allowed. And entropy is not the same as disorder in the layman's sense.

Everything tends towards a state of disorder or degeneration. Order never comes from chaos, as the evolutionist seem to believe when they put forth the Big Bang theory. From some cosmic explosion of gasses, billions of years ago, came forth perfectly ordered galaxies, solar systems, and even the earth itself with all of nature in all of its complexity working in beautiful harmony. Amazing! Astounding! Wonderful order coming right out of an explosion. That is entirely contrary to the laws of science. Order never arises out of chaos. After the WTC towers "exploded" how long do you think it would take for the towers to rebuild themselves without any outside help from man? Would they just evolve into those same beautiful towers that they were before given the right amount of time if all the debris had just been left there, instead of being carried off. Yet that is precisely what the evolutionist would have us to believe!

Did they remember to ask God first how old the stars in the universe "were made to look" when He created them on the fourth day of creation? Everything, even the stars with their shining lights, was created with an appearance of age. I guess that would throw all their calculations off wouldn't it? 10 billion light years would only be, let's say 6,000 to 10,000 years. I think your a bit off in your calculations.

Ahhhhhh! So you answer it all with "an appearance of age." Let's see, all the stars of the universe were created with an apperance of age. Mind you, not all the same age, exactly. We we look at the cosmos, we se stars that formed at many different periods in the history of the universe. We can see new stars forming even today. So it is not just the stars who have an "appearance of age," but that we can also trace through the history. We can tell when stars were born. When they died. We can see galaxies forming. We can see the compostion of the universe changing with time as supernovae litter the universe with star ashes. So all this was faked? There is a whole history written in the stars that never happened? All these things were created to only look as if all this had happened? Everything was carefully coordinated such that it would appear that there was a 13.5 billion year old universe with a plausible history of how everything got to where it is today? Amazing!

What is amazing is your refusal to look at any of the scientific data that the Bible presents. Of course everything was created with an appearance of age, and not everything had to appear the same age. When God made trees and shrubs, I am sure that he put some variety in there; and so it was true of the stars also. Yes, that makes it very difficult, if not impossible to determine the age of a star. No one has ever seen a star forming. The light from the nearest star is how many light years away? So they see the light from that star that God created at that time.
There is nothing faked here. God did not fake a creation. Everything was created within a six day time period. But everything had an appearance of age when it was created. It is not such a difficult concept to grasp. You think you see stars that formed at different periods through "history." God formed stars at varying "ages" when He created them, just as he may have formed Adam older than Eve or even vice versa, though we have no evidence who looked the older.

And the earth too! The sun, the comets, and the asteroids were all created with the exact same age imprinted into their structure. An age that does not actually exist. Everytime a rock formed over the last "6000 - 10000" years it too was imprinted with an age that tells of a history that never happened. Rocks that take hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of years to form instead formed in a few short years (I am speaking of rocks that have been formed since the formation of the world, not the original rocks) , or less, then their chemistry was changed to make it look like a much longer time and the radiological signature was changed to make them look millions of years old. Fault lines that can be measured and appear to have been moving for millions of years, all that was faked. It is not real. The ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years, they were made in the last couple of thousand with most of the layers already there and telling a history that never happened. I guess that all the transitional species that we have dug up were never actually alive, either? Rocks that just happen to look like bones, perhaps?

When you are referring to the earth you are referring to a different story. After creation was the Flood, a world-wide Flood which we have no reason to doubt the actual historical exstence of. The effect of this flood in itself will throw all your calculations based on uniformitarianism right down the gutter. Rocks that look like they took "millions of years to form" were formed in just a few months under the great forces put on the earth by the flood. You ought to read "The Genesis Flood," by Whitcomb and Morris. It will give you excellent information in this regard, both Biblical and scientific.
"Rocks formed since the creation of the world." There aren't any. They were all destroyed in a catastrophic world wide flood. Peter describes it as "the world that then was perished."

In the end, all you are doing is admitting that the evidence shows an ancient creation, you simply choose not to accept it. I cannot accept that God would created such a detailed and intertwined history that never happened.

The evidence shows a new creation that was destroyed by a cataclysmic world wide Flood. It doesn't show an ancient creation at all. Your words "I cannot accept that God would create.. is a statement of unbelief that God cannot do what He did. You might as well be saying "I don't want to believe."

There isn't one part of my body that I share with an ape. No siree! This body is made in the image and the likeness of God, and never was in the animal kingdom at all. That's an insult to my intelligence--insinuating that I am an animal.

But sir, you are an animal. Nothing personal, it just just a matter of some specific characteristics of your cells. And you share your entire body with apes because you are in actuality an ape. Again, no offense, but that is just the way the ball bounces. Look at your body. A thin covering of hair. Five dexterious fingers with fingerprints and with fingernails instead of claws. Only two lactal nipples and located on your chest instead of your abdomen. Prehensile toes. Your five pointed molars with a specifically shaped crevasse. You will even die if exposed to the toxin of the male funnel spider. You share a very specific mutation that prevents the formation of Vitamin C in your body. These are all individually traits that are rarely if ever shared outside of the apes and primates. Certainly no animal that is not an ape of a primate shares several of these traits. But you share them all with your fellow apes and primates. So even if you belief that you were literally formed from dirt 6000 years ago, you were made an ape. Though an ape with a soul in the image of God.

In spite of my meagre learning (I have an M.Ed in Biology, and a M.A. in Theology), I believe I am on sound ground when I say that man is not in the animal kingdom.
Humanistic mankind puts him there for the convenience of his own modern taxonomic classification systems. But God did not. I do not dare impose man's system of classification over God's, who said that He made man in His own image and likeness. He also made man separate from the animals. I can also safely say that in my study of biology (and other sciences) I have never encountered one scientific FACT that contradicts the Bible. But then, evolution is not based on fact.
DHK

 

[HankD]

If you are thinking of George Washington, you must give the clue "animal" rather than Vegetable or Mineral.

So there.

OK smarty-pants

What if I am thinking of Jesus?

HankD

 

[UTEOTW]

For brevity, a few responses...

Originally posted by DHK:
From some cosmic explosion of gasses,

Who said anything about an explosion. You misrepresent the initial (and continuing) expansion of the universe to call it an explosion.

No one has ever seen a star forming.

Wrong. We have plenty of examples in the process of forming. Would you like a few links to some pictures?

Rocks that look like they took "millions of years to form" were formed in just a few months under the great forces put on the earth by the flood.

Ah, but here is why I was very specific. When rocks form, their chemistry is very different depending on the rate at which they cool. Rocks that were cooled in only a few months (if even possible, which I doubt for many structures even if you had an endless supply of cooling water running over them) would have a VERY different makeup in the types and sizes of crytals and minerals that form. For you to be stating the truth, the makeup of these rocks would necessarily have been changed to make it look as if they took eons to form. A short period gives you a different rock.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Who said anything about an explosion. You misrepresent the initial (and continuing) expansion of the universe to call it an explosion.

No doubt there are now different varying theories on the origin of the universe. The most popular one was the Big Bang Theory, taught as fact in the public school system. It did not teach a continuing expansion of the universe (which again would be to deny the first law of thermodynamics), but it taught that from one explosion that resulted from the union of a few primeval gasses, our universe was born. That is too unreal to believe.

No one has ever seen a star forming.

Wrong. We have plenty of examples in the process of forming. Would you like a few links to some pictures?

I don't doubt you here. What came first: the chicken or the egg? God created the chicken. That was easy. In this case God created the light of the stars at the same time as the stars. How far away is the nearest star in light years? So then, what are you looking at? The star, or the light that is still coming from the star?

Rocks that look like they took "millions of years to form" were formed in just a few months under the great forces put on the earth by the flood.

Ah, but here is why I was very specific. When rocks form, their chemistry is very different depending on the rate at which they cool. Rocks that were cooled in only a few months (if even possible, which I doubt for many structures even if you had an endless supply of cooling water running over them) would have a VERY different makeup in the types and sizes of crytals and minerals that form. For you to be stating the truth, the makeup of these rocks would necessarily have been changed to make it look as if they took eons to form. A short period gives you a different rock.

The Flood is interesting to read about by those who are well acquainted with the scientific aspects of it, like Whitcomb and Morris. Keep in mind that at that time there were many forces all going on at the same time: volcanic, great amounts of earth shifting from pressure of the water, land erosion, sudden climactic changes, and a sudden ice age appearing immediately after the flood. After the flood the north and south poles became frozen, whereas before the flood the entire world was like a tropical greenhouse. The ice age went through with great sheets of ice moving down parts of North America and Europe. Volcanos too were still active. Even mountains at this time were being formed.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

You need to look at all the evidence before coming to evolutionary conclusions concerning the age of rocks.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by DHK:
The human mind is very complex, and yet at the same time very similar to some of the most complex computers of our time. We have a hard drive in our brain where all our information is stored. We have memory. Sometimes our ability to recall the data that we have stored on our hard drive does not function as well as we would like. There are many that need their hard drives cleaned up and reformatted, but that's another topic.
I suppose the question is then: Did man evolve from a computer. Or maybe vice-versa?
As ridiculous a question that may be, it is the same thing that you are proposing. Just because two different things share like characteristics does mean that they evolved one from the other. In the case that I cited it was man that made the computer. It was his "invention" made with the intellect that God had given him.
In the example that you tried to give us, there was no evolution that took place. God created man in his own image and likeness. He also created the apes. There is one creator. The fact that He can create man and animals with certain characteristics common to each other in no way supports evolution, but rather supports One Maker who designed everything after His own will.
DHK

In other words, you disprove evolution by assuming it isn't true?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
In other words, you disprove evolution by assuming it isn't true?

You have it backwards. As I noted before, it was Julian Huxley that said: I believe in evolution, not because it is credible, but rather because belief in God is too incredible.
The assumptions are all on the part of the evolutionists. The first assumption is that there is no God, or an unbelief in God in some form. This is exactly what Huxley said. Belief in God was too incredible for him. He would go to any extreme, believe anything, but not God.

The second assumption is that anything of a scientific nature that is written or could be explained from the Bible is obviously wrong. The evolutionist will disregard the Bible without even looking at the evidence therein. Like Huxley, anything but God (the Bible).

The third assumption is that one can tread over all the scientific laws he cares to just to prove his presuppositions true.
Evolution falls in the realm of religion, not based on observable facts, but rather on blind faith. Who observed the origin of the world or the universe? No one, and no science can deal properly with origins and has no right to. The topic of origins rightly belongs in the realm of religion. And that is where evolution is placing itself.
The law of biogenesis: that life only comes from life. Evolution demands that we descended or came from something inanimate, whether they be inert primeval gasses or some other thing. Something had to start somewhere. Plant a kernel of wheat, and a stalk of wheat will grow. Plant an acorn and a tree will grow. Plant grass seed and grass will grow. Plant a rock and a rock will not grow. Living things only come from living things. We did not descend from rocks or any other inanimate object. The evolutionist, defying all laws of science would have us to believe this and other such ridiculous things that fly in the face of true science. It is more like fairy tale scientism or religion that what true science really is. It is the evolutionism that needs to take a good hard look at his own presuppositions, assumptions, and the evidence that the creationist has.
DHK

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by DHK:
No doubt there are now different varying theories on the origin of the universe. The most popular one was the Big Bang Theory, taught as fact in the public school system. It did not teach a continuing expansion of the universe (which again would be to deny the first law of thermodynamics), but it taught that from one explosion that resulted from the union of a few primeval gasses, our universe was born. That is too unreal to believe.

I see your problem. You must believe you understand a thing before you believe it to be true. The first law of thermodynamics - that energy is neither created or destroyed - is not violated even though an entire universe comes into being, if the negative energy involved in the creation of space and time is balanced by the positive energy embodied in matter and radiation.

The reality is, of course, that all creation is simply a thought in the mind of God anyway and there is no question about His ability to think of it in any way He wants. The only thing we do is try to look to the evidence to see what kind of universe we have. The evidence shows it to be 14 Billion years old and expanding.

What came first: the chicken or the egg? God created the chicken. That was easy. In this case God created the light of the stars at the same time as the stars. How far away is the nearest star in light years? So then, what are you looking at? The star, or the light that is still coming from the star?

This is not reasoning, and this is not evidence. This is argument by declaration that "I am right". It doesn't go very far in scientific matters.

You need to look at all the evidence before coming to evolutionary conclusions concerning the age of rocks.

We await your presentation of evidence. Declarative sentences are not evidence.

 

[HankD]

We await your presentation of evidence. Declarative sentences are not evidence.

Why not, science does this as well, the origin of the universe we are told began with "the Singularity" which no one can define although one paper I read said it was the size of a garden pea.

HankD

 

[Travelsong]

One of my new favorite sites which is a compilation of rebuttals to all literal six day Creationist arguments: Things Creationists Hate

 

[doug_mmm]

TravelSong

That site you referred to is quite an eye opener. It really does show the intense harm caused by YEC's. The astronomy arguments contained therein were excellent.

Still most ( not all YEC's ) believe 'we are the only faithful ones' so there's little hope that they will stop and reconsider.

Thanks for contributing that.