Evolution/geology

[PhilVaz]

rheins << Here’s another link to another “crazy” creationist scientist >>

Problem with this link is Plaisted is a computer scientist, he is not a geologist. Plaisted has been answered in detail by the geologist/chemist Henke who also deals in depth with Woody’s bogus material on same.

rheins << And another >>

Problem with those “evidences for a young world” is virtually all of them have been shown to be bogus by Dalrymple over 20 years ago. Read the Dalrymple 1984 U.S. Geological Survey report on creationism. See also the Index to Creationist Claims where all of them are answered. Humphreys has been answered by Hugh Ross and other folks knowledgeable in the sciences.

There is not evidence on “both sides” – you just need to read and study a little closer. I’ll let Orogeny, rossum, zian, steveanderson, HECD2, or any of the “evolution regulars” deal with the rest.

Whoah there, you need to let people answer. I have the book "In Six Days" and the reason (sub-title) “Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation” and a “young earth” is because they desire to interpret Genesis that way. It has nothing to do with science, and they admit that. There is very little science in the book. I can quote from it if you like.

Phil P

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

Some simple questions: why did Christian creationist geologists throw out all your “evidence” for a young earth over 150 years ago? Why did Christian creationist geologists come to understand, based on the geological evidence, that there was no worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, and that the earth was very old?
Phil P

Maybe for the same reason as scientists who were once evolutionists, but then became creationists.

There are people on both sides that have converted. People’s choices to convert to one side or the other are not proof of evolution. I believed in earth evolution before I started seeing evidence on the other side. I didnt even know there was evidence on the other side until about 5 years ago.

If all you are taught is evolution, then why would you doubt it…if you were to become a scientist after years of indoctrination in evolutionary theory, then you would probably lean to that side of the arguement, as did I.

If you asked those converts on my side, I’m sure they would say they converted because of the evidence in geology, as well as every other science.

ONCE AGAIN. My stance on this issue is that both sides cannot prove anything. Therefore, both sides are theories, not fact. If you chose to believe in evolution, I dont have a problem with that. But dont propose it as scientific fact(like the knowledge of the speed of gravity), because you cant prove it. If it turns out evolution is correct, my position creates no problem to that fact. I am open to both sides. But, if creationism is proven fact, then Orogeny, and many others who embrazenly call it fact that cannot be disputed, will look like the scientists of 1000 years ago.

P.S. Do you really believe that scientists have stopped standing on the wrong side of truth, like most all of them have throughout history?..Scientists(the clear clear majority) have been wrong in the past and they will be wrong in the future.

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

Problem with this link is Plaisted is a computer scientist, he is not a geologist. Plaisted has been answered in detail by the geologist/chemist Henke who also deals in depth with Woody’s bogus material on same.

You’re just not understanding. Im sure Plaisted will say the same thing…that he has proved Henke wrong on those same issues. Do you think Plaisted is just using 3rd grade logic, while Henke is using advanced mathematical Fourier series to prove his side? Plaisted has a list of all of Henke’s bogus material, too. So why do you then take Henke’s side…its because he agrees with you, and his rebuttals are probably the only thing you are reading. Do you think that Plaisted just saw Henkes rebuttal and gave up because he knew empirically Henke had proved him wrong!!! NO! These 2(and does it really matter what your degree is in if you know that much about something…no. I have a degree in civil engineering, and couldn’t tell you squat about calculating beam camber stresses across a cross section.) are both very credible scientists who each raise valid points, and give scientific evidence. The problem is neither of them can prove without a doubt their side of the issue. Science has always been a discussion forum. 2 people can be brilliant scientists and disagree without reservation on the same point. The discussion will be over when it can be proven EMPIRICALLY!

PhilVaz:

Problem with those “evidences for a young world” is virtually all of them have been shown to be bogus by Dalrymple over 20 years ago. Read the Dalrymple 1984 U.S. Geological Survey report on creationism. .

WRONG…just because Mr. Dalrymple says its wrong doesnt make it wrong…see above. He hasnt proven anything. That is a very bold claim to make. Youll know whn he proves it, because every single scientist(except the always crazed 1 or 2) will accept it, just as EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST accepts that the earth is round.

PhilVaz:

See also the Index to Creationist Claims where all of them are answered. Humphreys has been answered by Hugh Ross and other folks knowledgeable in the sciences…

Once again, my scientists are morons, while yours are “knowledgeable in the sciences” Read some of their stuff, I guarantee it will look and sound like Chinese to you and I.

You point to this guy, I point to that guy…but you are forced to accept my contention that the issue is debateable…because it is being debated.(if not then I cannot argue with stubborness)

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, MY POSITION IS NOT THAT THE WORLD IS DEFINATELY, UNEQUIVICABLY LESS THAN 10,000 YEARS OLD…MY POSITION IS THAT YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT IT IS OLDER THAN THAT, AND WE CANNOT PROVE THAT IT IS YOUNGER.

You can have a stance on the issue, but to assure yourself that your side cannot be wrong is just vain and false.

PhilVaz:

There is not evidence on “both sides” – you just need to read and study a little closer. …

Are you serious?! Like I said before, people like you just will not ACCEPT any evidence except what is on your side. Looks like you need to read and study a little more instead of following the majority like a blind sheep. Thats just a ludicrous statement. Dont waste my time if you’re not going to even look at my evidence.

The majority of people think contraception is morally acceptable…that doesnt make them right

The majority of people thought slavery was morally acceptable…that doesnt make it right.

And the majority of people thought the sun revolved around the earth…wrong again

PhilVaz:

Whoah there, you need to let people answer. I have the book "In Six Days" and the reason (sub-title) “Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation” and a “young earth” is because they desire to interpret Genesis that way. It has nothing to do with science, and they admit that. There is very little science in the book. I can quote from it if you like.
Phil P

Good for you…I have a hundred books that say the same thing about evolutionists…that they believe in evolution because it is the only alternate to God, and living a moral life of self-sacrifice and penance. And those books make the same claim on their science.

You are just in denial that the other side exists

 

[PhilVaz]

rheins << Maybe for the same reason as scientists who were once evolutionists, but then became creationists. >>

No evolutionist becomes a creationist for valid scientific reasons. I have the book to prove that, it is called “In Six Days” edited by John Ashton and perhaps I will quote from it to show you. There are 50 Ph.D.'s in the book, and all of them cite Genesis and religious reasons for becoming or remaining young-earth creationists. There are no valid scientific reasons, and we’ll get to your “evidences for a young world” shortly.

rheins << I believed in earth evolution before I started seeing evidence on the other side. I didnt even know there was evidence on the other side until about 5 years ago. >>

Articles from AnswersInGenesis, ICR, TrueOrigin, or the Kolbe Center is not valid scientific evidence for a young earth. Something from Nature, Science, or any of a hundred peer-reviewed geology, biology, astronomy, physics, or natural science publications or societies would be. There is no valid scientific evidence for a young earth or young universe which is why it isn’t found in the peer-reviewed literature and is rejected by mainstream science.

Phil P

 

[rheins2000]

Oh, and by the way, you are allowed in the Catholic Church to believe in evolution as far as the earth is concerned…I have no problem with that…but you MUST believe that God created Adam and Eve as the first persons, and breathed a soul into them.

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BELIEVE THAT HUMANS EVOLVED FROM SOME PRIMORDIAL SOUP MIXTURE. THAT IS NOT ONLY AGAINST THE FAITH OF THE TRUE CHURCH, BUT STUPENDOUDLY RIDICULOUS. (Life doesnt come from nothing…you have been given God given reason to know that…as well as scientific proof(or lack thereof)

However if you disagree with me on that issue, I cant help you, because if you dont believe in God, then you have also lost his Grace of knowledge of him.

But, I assume I am talking to Catholics. If not, oh well.

 

[PhilVaz]

rheins << Good for you…I have a hundred books that say the same thing about evolutionists… >>

You have a hundred books that suggest evolutionists became or remained evolutionist for religious reasons? Please tell me about those books.

I have one book “In Six Days” with short chapters by 50 Ph.D. scientists that clearly tells me people become or remain young-earth creationists for religious or “Genesis interpretation” reasons. It has nothing to do with science. And I’ll soon have to quote that book…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

rheins << YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BELIEVE THAT HUMANS EVOLVED FROM SOME PRIMORDIAL SOUP MIXTURE. THAT IS NOT ONLY AGAINST THE FAITH OF THE TRUE CHURCH, BUT STUPENDOUDLY RIDICULOUS. >>

Cardinal Ratzinger / Benedict XVI on humans evolving from a primordial soup mixture (otherwise known as a first primitive organism some 3 billion years ago):

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (International Theological Commission 2004 statement approved by Ratzinger)

“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.” (In The Beginning on Genesis)

Get over it, we come from Chicken Noodle a couple billion years ago, Ratzinger/Benedict has spoken. Of course there’s a little more to it than that. But please one creationist error at a time, it will take a little while to answer you. Maybe 15 minutes tops.

Phil P

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

No evolutionist becomes a creationist for valid scientific reasons.

Says who? you and your book. I became a creationist because of valid scientific evidence…and I have given you some of that…of which by the way, you have not addressed once.

Thats just you opinion, or refusal to accept creationist evidence, or a lie. I cannot respond to such a ridiculous statement. I thought my earlier posts would have told you that.

PhilVaz:

I have the book to prove that.

No you dont…you have a book that has proved it to you. I have 12 books that prove it to me. Can you not grasp this concept?

PhilVaz:

There are 50 Ph.D.'s in the book.

That’s wonderful…I have 50 Ph.D.'s in my books. You just let me know when 50 Ph.D.'s constitute scientific fact, like the 10,000 Ph.D.'s(or whatever equivicable title they held back in their days) who assured al of humankind that the earth was the center of the universe.

PhilVaz:

and all of them cite Genesis and religious reasons for becoming or remaining young-earth creationists. .

No kidding…citing religious reasons for believing in God and his creation…wow, I wish you would have shared that with me earlier…now I can become an evolutionist.

PhilVaz:

we’ll get to your “evidences for a young world” shortly…

Please do. Im waiting.

PhilVaz:

Something from Nature, Science, or any of a hundred peer-reviewed geology, biology, astronomy, physics, or natural science publications or societies would be. There is no valid scientific evidence for a young earth or young universe which is why it isn’t found in the peer-reviewed literature and is rejected by mainstream science…

Apparently you havent listened to me about mainstream… OPEN YOUR EYES: MAINSTREAM IDEAS DO NOT EQUATE TO TRUTH. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO ME SO I WILL NOT ADDRESS THIS AGAIN. THERE IS EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES> THERE ARE CREATION SCIENTISTS WHO ARE A LOT SMARTER THAN YOU WHO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE. STOP ARGUING THE SAME POINT. I NEVER DISAGREED WITHYOU ON THE FACT THAT YOUR VIEW IS MAINSTREAM. SO WAS THE THEORY THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT. MAINSTREAM MEDIA DISTORTS TRUTH ALL THE TIME, MAINSTREAM SCIENCE HAS BEEN WRONG COUNTLESS TIMES.

NOTICE THAT ALL OF YOUR POINTS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY PARTICULAR EVIDENCE, THEY JUST KEEP SAYING, "WELL MOST SCIENTISTS ACCEPT IT< SO THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

THAT REASONING IS NOT ONLY ILLOGICAL BUT JUST PLAIN IGNORANT

 

[PhilVaz]

rheins << The discussion will be over when it can be proven EMPIRICALLY! >>

Oh its over all right.

Whole-Rock Isochron Ages of Different Meteorite Groups, from G. Brent Dalrymple (page 291)

Age (billions of years)

4.21 +/- 0.76
4.37 +/- 0.34
4.50 +/- 0.02
4.43 +/- 0.04
4.52 +/- 0.04
4.59 +/- 0.06
4.44 +/- 0.12
4.38 +/- 0.12
4.49 +/- 0.02
4.46 +/- 0.06
4.51 +/- 0.04
4.44 +/- 0.13
4.53 +/- 0.19
4.44 +/- 0.30
4.57 +/- 0.19
4.45 +/- 0.18
4.57 +/- 0.21

Hundreds of thousands of such dates have been published since the 1950s.

From G. Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth (Stanford Univ Press, 1991) :

The development and refinement of modern instrumentation and radiometric dating methods based on the decays of isotopes of uranium, potassium, rubidium, samarium, rhenium, and lutetium to their respective daughter products lead, argon, strontium, neodymium, osmium, and hafnium beginning in the mid-1950s and continuing to the present finally produced the answer to the question of the antiquity of the earth.

We can be confident that the minimum age for the earth exceeds 4 billion years – the evidence is abundant and compelling. Rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all the continents, but four especially well-studied areas: the Superior region of North America, the Isua-Godthaab area of western Greenland, the Pilbara block in the northern part of Western Australia, and Swaziland in southern Africa, where rocks 3.5 billion years or more in age have been found, carefully mapped, thoroughly studied, and dated by more than one radiometric method.

Meteorites are the oldest and most primitive rocks available for earthbound scientists to study. The majority of the 70 or so well-dated meteorites have individual Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Pb-Pb and 40Ar / 39Ar ages of 4.4 to 4.6 billion years. Internal and whole-rock isochron ages determined by Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Sm-Nd, Pb-Pb, and Re-Os methods, as well as other isotopic evidence, shows the major meteorite types were formed within a few tens of millions of years between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years ago.

All hypotheses for formation of our solar system call for the planets, including earth and the asteroids, to be formed within a very short interval of time. Thus, the ages of meteorites are relevant to the age of the earth and suggest that the earth and the other solid bodies of the solar system formed about 4.5 to 4.6 billion years ago (Dalrymple, pages 398-401).

“We now know, to within 1% or better and from a variety of evidence, that the age of the Earth-Moon-meteorite system is about 4.51 - 4.55 Ga [billions of years old].” (G. Brent Dalrymple, from “The Age of the Earth in the Twentieth Century: A Problem (Mostly) Solved” in The Age of the Earth From 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell [Geological Society, 2001], page 219)

It’s over, can’t get any more empirical than that. To within 1%. Give up yet?

Phil P

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

Cardinal Ratzinger / Benedict XVI on humans evolving from a primordial soup mixture (otherwise known as a first primitive organism some 3 billion years ago):

With all due respect, sir, you are either a liar or a swindler. Dont distort what the pope said with this ignorant statement. He simply leaves it open to discussion of where the matter came from that God formed into humans. Never did I disagree with that. You can believe whatever you want…but your “primordial soup” idea does not incorporate the human soul, which, by theological definition makes a human a human in the image and likeness of God.

Here is what the Church teaches:

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God”

PhilVaz:

it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. ):

Which is Adam. By definition of human beings in regards to Catholic theology, Humans are those who possess souls, which separate them from animals. Therefore, all humans have descended from our first parents.

PhilVaz:

Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution." (International Theological Commission 2004 statement approved by Ratzinger)):

No problem with that.

PhilVaz:

Get over it, we come from Chicken Noodle a couple billion years ago, Ratzinger/Benedict has spoken.

Not what is said. You are a liar. Never did our Pope say that your noodle soup is a fact. He only left you open to believe that a soup is a possible origin of the MATTER ONLY of where the physiological aspect of a human being came from.

If you’re using the Church to prove your point, I guess you agree with this then:

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

So your matter from nothing is out the window

 

[PhilVaz]

rheins << Not what is said. You are a liar. Never did our Pope say that your noodle soup is a fact. He only left you open to believe that a soup is a possible origin of the MATTER ONLY of where the physiological aspect of a human being came from. >>

You’re the guy with the Chicken Noodle soup idea, I was only making fun of it. What we get from Ratzinger/Benedict’s writings is very clearly the following:

(1) The earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe is approx 15 billion years old (or 13.7 to be more precise)
(2) Universal common descent or what is called Macroevolution is “virtually certain”
(3) We and all other living organisms on this planet evolved from a first primitive organism some 3-4 billion years ago
(4) Homo sapiens in particular evolved from primate ape-like ancestors some 150,000 years ago
(5) Genesis should not be interpreted literally or as a science text
(6) Genesis tells us “who we are” not “how we got here”
(7) Biological evolution tells us “how we got here”

It is too late at night for this stuff. Don’t worry, all your bogus scientific evidence for young-earthism will be demolished by the evolution regulars I’m sure. It is all addressed on TalkOrigins and elsewhere. And I’ve addressed it in the past many many many many many many times.

Part 1 on Theology, Part 2 on Age of Earth, Part 3 on Evolution.

Phil P

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

Whole-Rock Isochron Ages of Different Meteorite Groups, from G. Brent Dalrymple (page 291)

old.4

Whole-Rock Isochron Ages of Different Meteorite Groups, from G. Brent Dalrymple (page 291)

Age (billions of years)

4.21 +/- 0.76
4.37 +/- 0.34
4.50 +/- 0.02
4.43 +/- 0.04
4.52 +/- 0.04
4.59 +/- 0.06
4.44 +/- 0.12
4.38 +/- 0.12
4.49 +/- 0.02
4.46 +/- 0.06
4.51 +/- 0.04
4.44 +/- 0.13
4.53 +/- 0.19
4.44 +/- 0.30
4.57 +/- 0.19
4.45 +/- 0.18
4.57 +/- 0.21

Hundreds of thousands of such dates have been published since the 1950s.

Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced.3 For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years

Looks like you’re wrong and Im right.

Also looks like you dont even read evidence against the gross errors produced by your dating methods which you live and die with.

As quoted by YEC Woodmorappe (1999, p. 24), Dalrymple (1984, p. 101) admits that many terrestrial lead samples do not EXACTLY lie on a 4.55 billion year old meteorite isochron.

Yeah, that sounds empirical. not EXACTLY? Do you know what that means. Fact is 100% not 99% or 98% Do you even know what empirical means? Maybe my logic is a bit over your head. You seem to be presenting radiometric dating numbers, which you are too dumb to even realize that these methods are not accurate.

Here are what you evolutionists claim:

**Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:
**
**"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock’."10****Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation:
**
"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."11

“Radiochronologists must resort to indirect methods which involve certain basic assumptions. Not only is there no way to verify the validity of these assumptions, but inherent in these assumptions are factors that assure that the ages so derived, whether accurate or not, will always range in the millions to billions of years (excluding the carbon-14 method, which is useful for dating samples only a few thousand years old).”

Looks like Im right and you’re wrong once again. Theres no 1%, mine is 100% true. Hows that for empirical.

Try again…try not using your faulty dating methods

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

(1) The earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe is approx 15 billion years old (or 13.7 to be more precise)

Not what he said…you are either a liar or this is way over your head…him saying that you are free to believe it does not mean he is saying thats how it was. But, I believe you are too stubborn to know this, since you keep quoting him and then writing ridiculous statements and coming to your own conclusions about it.

PhilVaz:

(2) Universal common descent or what is called Macroevolution is “virtually certain”)

Where did you get this quote from…and by the way, “virtually” does not mean “absolutely”

And Popes do not infallible make declarations on science unless it affects faith and morals. So, although I subject myself to his teachings, Popes do not declare scientific things infallibly.

PhilVaz:

(3) We and all other living organisms on this planet evolved from a first primitive organism some 3-4 billion years ago"

Once again, it is possible…you are stating it as a fact that he told us we must believe. You are, Im afraid, a manipulator who will distort anything to fit your position. None of your list is fact, its only a list that CAN be believed.

You have written down that list as if it were fact and are too dumb to even comprehend my position.

PhilVaz:

Don’t worry, all your bogus scientific evidence for young-earthism will be demolished by the evolution regulars I’m sure."

Wait a second…I thought you had already done that…seems like you cant answer my evidence. Thank you very much…You just proved my position.

PhilVaz:

It is all addressed on TalkOrigins and elsewhere. And I’ve addressed it in the past many many many many many many times."

Great, so have I. And talk origins is a website that supports your position…of course you agree with it. Ivve got websites too…you seem to be playing the same game over and over and over again.

It floors me that you cant even accept the position that this is debateable. You are the most hard headed person Ive ever seen.

How can you not accept my position that it is debateable, when scientists are debating over it…Do you realize how much of a lunatic you sound like?

Phil P

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

You have a hundred books that suggest evolutionists became or remained evolutionist for religious reasons? Please tell me about those books.
Phil P

What??!..no I have no books that say that. I will agree with you on that.

Where do I say I have those types of books?

Actually, Im quite certian those types of books dont even exist.

 

[CollegeCatholic]

The very sad irony of Creationism and the new school therein of “Intelligent Design” is that it simply reduces God and sells Him way too short. One of the beautiful things about scientific inquiry is that we get to explore deeper and deeper the complex physical reality of God’s creation. With that being said, there is no biblical reason for the existence of undiscovered life-forms such as deep-sea life and extinct species. Where in the Bible does it explain why we have appendixes and third molars? Why do we have a tail bone? Where do dinosaurs come from? Why are there dinosaurs? Where did they go? Why do we poop and pee?

When we realized that the Earth was not at the center of the universe, we realized that God’s creation was much more complicated than we gave it credit for. If you do not believe that the earth is very old, would it not also be consistent to say that the Universe is actually very small? If you do believe science that our Universe is absolutely massive and that we are the tiniest of specks within it, is it not a far cry to believe that we are but a speck on the map geologically, timely, and biologically as well? Does it not give an even more amazing quality to God’s reducing Himself to become a man and die for the sake of little old, insignificant humanity?

 

[PhilVaz]

college << Where in the Bible does it explain why we have appendixes and third molars? Why do we have a tail bone? >>

Uh oh, rheins2000 and Jack Chick have a ready answer to that one:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/BD16.gif

Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics rears its ugly head once again in these forums. Another:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/BD15.gif

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

rheins2000 << It floors me that you cant even accept the position that this is debateable. You are the most hard headed person Ive ever seen. >>

Let’s see, I’ve studied this issue off and on since about 1988, more intently the past 5 years. I own about 50 creationist and “Intelligent Design” books, videos, and various other materials. I’ve read pretty extensively AnswersInGenesis, DrDino, ICR, the Kolbe Center. I’ve printed out their material in fact, taken it to Kinkos, had it bound. Read through it very carefully.

My conclusion, after about 18 years is: creation science is utter nonsense, their science is utter nonsense, their biblical interpretations are naive at best, they reject good logic, they throw reason in the trash, they are ignorant of the history of the issue, and many other things I can probably list, etc.

Don’t let it floor you, millions of former creationists came to the same conclusion. Glenn Morton is one, Ed Babinski is another, and Denis Lamoureux is yet another. They are much more familiar with the science and data than myself, and they came to evolution and an ancient earth because of the overwhelming scientific evidence for it, and because they realized there is no valid science to “creation science.”

So you agree with me that there are no books written by evolutionists where they claim they became or remained evolutionists for purely religious reasons, or because of the way they interpreted the Genesis text or other religious writings. Good. That’s a starting point where we can agree on something!

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, I quote and cite Dalrymple directly, I own his book.

Your sites do not count as valid science. This is an especially bad site. It has as much validity (but less humor) as LandoverBaptist.org

Please quote something from the mainstream scientific literature for your position as I have. I won’t accept ChristianAnswers.net, AiG, DrDino, Kolbe Center since I already know how unreliable they are.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, rheins2000 your responses are just classic stuff. I am going to HAVE to add your comments to the end of my Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics, with the proper links to TalkOrigins replies of course. I especially liked the “lunatic” and “liar” comments. Very very funny. Thank you and good night. :yawn:

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

Oh, my. Where to begin.

rheins2000:

FROM THE DICTIONARY: physics., The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

The chemical change that takes place in organic matter as it transitions from organic marsh deposits to coal is a matter of chemistry.

For my theory(which was what I described as physics): Pressure, and heating(energy) and existing organic material(matter) and the interaction between them is what produces coal…same as your theory, but I theorize a smaller length of time needed to produce the coal. And once again, in relation to the comparison of time, pressure, and temperature, and transit energy this is more thermodynamics than chemistry.(And I hope you’re aware that thermodynamics is a branch of physics)

Your theory of rapid coal formation has no evidence for it. What model do you have that would generate the heat and pressure necessary to create the vast coal beds found world wide in a one-time event? What are the consequences of that rapid coalification?

Thats just because you wont listen to any evidence except what appears to lend credence to your theory

That’s because there is no evidence that opposes “my” theory

…but dont take my theory just from me…because Im just an old fashioned idiot and not a big time scientist like you…maybe youll take it from this guy:RAPID COAL, GEORGE R. HILL Dean of College of Mines & Mineral Industries, on discovery of human artifacts in natural coal deposits: “A rather startling and serendipitous discovery resulted…These observations suggest that in their formation, high rank coals,…were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event.” [Six Hours], Chemtech, May, 1972, p. 292. I just gave you some evidence. I have given you the evidence of fish, clams, animals, artifacts, and trees standing vertically, petrified in coal deposits. That is great evidence for my side fo this coin, because it absolutely proves that coal CAN form in a short period of time…otherwise you would not have the petrification of that wood, and fully fossilized animals.

What you gave is a quote from a journal (called Journal of Chemical Technology, not Chemtech) written in 1972 that has gained no traction at all. If coal (and I believe oil according to the author) can be created in a matter of minutes on a large scale, why are we still mining both?

One explanation of these phenomena can then be that, because there was a great flood(which the bible spends a great deal curtailing…Im guessing you have just thrown out that evidence, even though it is the oldest explanation of human events we have) the deposition of highly organic material occured(say, every human and animal save a few dying at the same time and all depositing at the bottom of the flood.). Then, after the heavier objects(being humans, animals, plant material) settled to the bottom, the rapid settlement of stratified layers of sedimentation occurred.

You are claiming that organic material is heavier than sediment? Really?

Thats where your stratification comes into play.

Why are there evaporites? When did they form? Why are they found between some layers of sediments? Why do we find intebedded shales and sandstones? What about limestones? How do the fit into your “theory”?

I hope your aware, that if there were a great flood that covered the earth for 40 days, the natural process of hydrological sorting would occur, in which particles would stratify according to their fineness.

Have you ever studied a flood deposit? I mean specifically the sediment left behind by a flood of recent origin (as in the last week or so)? How stratified are those sediments?

Then they would eventually deposit over the highly organic material. And with the earth covered with water, at certain locations, there would be tremendous pressure(of which would be uncomprehendable) If you then balance a simple physical equation, time would be directly proportional to pressure. Less pressure, More time…more time, less pressure.

And where did all the heat go when the coal was finished? Why didn’t that immense amount of heat not turn the coal into graphite or diamond? Why didn’t it melt the surrounding rock?

Peace

Tim