The 6000 Year Earth

[rossum]

The source for the Russell Humphreys article is Answers in Genesis: answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old.

Here are 14 PRATTs, Points Refuted a Thousand Times. They have been repeated before ad nauseam by creationists and the answers to them are also available on the web.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

Refuted here: CE 380.

1. Too few supernova remnants.

Refuted here: CE 401.

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

Refuted here: CE 261.

1. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Refuted here: CD 220.

Points 8 to 14 come from TruthisBeauty7’s post #691. Points 5 to 7 can be seen at the AiG reference above.

1. Biological material decays too fast.

Refuted here: CC 371.

1. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.

Refuted here: CF 201.

1. Too much helium in minerals.

Refuted here: CD 015.

1. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

Refuted here: CD 011.6.

1. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Refuted here: CC 381.

1. Agriculture is too recent.

Refuted here: CG 041.

1. History is too short.

Refuted here: CG 040.

The case for the prosecution always looks good, until you hear the case for the defence. You are reading creationist sources, ICR and AiG. You also need to read scientific sources to get a better picture of what is going on.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Dr Morris is wrong.rossum

rossum, as a humorous aside, two colleagues and visited the ICR “museum” in 1998, and the one who bore the brunt was a woman who teaches biology at a Nazarene college. John Morris chastised her both for accepting evolution, and, more seriously, for having the audacity --as a mere woman – to earn a PhD and presume to teach males! She should have gotten pregnant and stayed home’; a woman should never presume to each a man.

Morris chastised me for a lesser offense. I asked in all seriousness how the ICR staff anticipated the YEC movement evolving in the next fifty years. Morris smiled and said, “We would really prefer that you not use the “E” word on these premises!”

StAnastasia

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Ive read your rebuttals to the Dr Morris… but you’ve fallen short badly . Evolution like I said before its a made up lie, just like how some Evolutionists have already admitted.

 

[rossum]

Ive read your rebuttals to the Dr Morris… but you’ve fallen short badly .

Where have I fallen short? Please be specific so I can correct my errors.

Evolution like I said before its a made up lie, just like how some Evolutionists have already admitted.

Which evolutionists, with references to where they said it if possible.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

Ive read your rebuttals to the Dr Morris… but you’ve fallen short badly . Evolution like I said before its a made up lie, just like how some Evolutionists have already admitted.

You’ll find that as the years roll on, fewer and fewer places will be congenial to your extraordinary rejection of science. May you find some quiet rural spot, where you will be undisturbed by biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists!

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

George Galord Simpson, a notable scientist himself, has said, “It is inherent that statements which cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything, or at the very least they are not science.” (Gish 1985: 12).

Where you there to OBSERVE the transformation of ape to Man Or how we climbed out of the primordial slime.as a cell … well then if you didn’t observe it , its not really about anything is it, its not even science. This is why I claim that Evolution is a dogma of Post Modernistic Atheism, established by the world elite . Hitler was a firm BELIEVER IN evolution , this is why he tried to form his super race and to crush and kill what he thought were a lower species of people. This included Christianity as well which he thought was a creation of the jews to weaken the other nations . Evolution is a deadly and evil philosophy its not science.

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution is a deadly and evil philosophy its not science.

Gee, you’d better inform the Catholic priests who are also evolutionary biologists. What will you tell them?

 

[avflf]

The Word of God tells us we are made in God’s image. That is good enough for me.

So, when you look in the mirror you see … God?

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

I gave a response to made in God’s image qoute. please read what I wrote. Lets stay on topic though… I got evolution buried in my next post.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Here are some Qoutes from Scientists I found very very Juicy…Everyone , please read these qoutes from men of science.

1.the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified…whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution ([4

2.“In other words, while Osborn, Gregory, and their colleagues considered themselves to have written scientific analysis of human evolution, they had in fact been telling stories (fiction). Scientific stories to be sure, but stories nonetheless.” Misia Landau,

3.“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.” T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22

4.“We cannot disprove that it (the universe) was created in 4004 B.C…” George Simpson, pro-evolution

5.“Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative – special creation – is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson

6.“The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine.” Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist.

1. I got a real chuckle from this qoute…those silly evolutionists haha '‘It was once thought that ...an organism was assumed to pass through the stages of its evolutionary history during its development as an embryo." "(This) has been thoroughly discredited by scientists today." ([4], p.354 4) What as thought to be gill slits’ is actually the formation of the middle ear canal, jaw, and parts of the head and neck. Haha…Wow…

Evolutionist John Durant ([11], p.312). "…the only reason why most people seem to believe in evolution is either because they want to believe in it or else because they have been cowed into accepting it out of fear of being called ignorant or reactionary or some such fearful name’’. So true…this is what ive been saying all along.

8.We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

9.“If there are so many problems with Darwinism and no satisfactory alternative within the framework of evolution, why not reevaluate the framework?” ([11], p.62 John Durant

1. “(the record of reckless speculation of human origins) is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.” Solly Zuckerman (

Well there you have it folks, this is the 100 percent gospel truth about evolution. Im sorry but this debate is over. Please just admit defeat before you continue to embarass yourself further.

 

[Orogeny]

lol, do you seriously believe this fluff?

He believes it, he just doesn’t understand it.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

It’s people like you Orogeny that reassures non catholics not to be catholic. I can honestly say catholics are some of the rudest people I know.

And yet you are on a Catholic forum calling Catholics rude. Hmmm.

By the way do you look like God or does God look like you?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Here are some Qoutes from Scientists I found very very Juicy…Everyone , please read these qoutes from men of science.

Too bad you don’t understand them. Quote mining is a sure sign of desperation resulting from the lack of understanding of the discussion topic.

Mine on.

Peace

Tim

 

[avflf]

View attachment 5812

End of argument. The Earth is not 6000 years old and here’s the proof. At last the "Missing Link " has been found, in Germany, and this transitional species of lemur, come monkey, come human, is 47 million years old and goes by the name of Ida.. One can readily discern its human/ape characteristics,

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

To me all that thing is , is some sort of ancient extinct monkey species.

And from your posted article…

‘’ But there’s a big gap in the fossil record from this time period, Richmond noted. Researchers are unsure when and where the primate group that includes monkeys, apes, and humans split from the other group of primates that includes lemurs’’.

and this juicy qoute…from your article “From this time period there are very few fossils, and they tend to be an isolated tooth here or maybe a tailbone there,” Richmond explained. “So you can’t say a whole lot of what that [type of fossil] represents in terms of evolutionary history or biology.”

This is not our ancient ancestor… Haha come on man , your really falling for this nonsense.

We are made a little lower then the angels. Were not Animals were Beings made in God’s Image!

Stop grasping at straws people.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Please everyone read my posting with qoutes from the men of science. this puts evolution to sleep.

 

[Orogeny]

To me all that thing is , is some sort of ancient extinct monkey species.

What is the scientific basis for your claim?

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

Please everyone read my posting with qoutes from the men of science. this puts evolution to sleep.

If so, why are 100,000 biologists still employed and happily working away? Why are evolutionary biology conferences scheduled for years into the future? Why are there never any scientific conferences on the Flintstones-Genesis hypothesis of human origins? If your model has any validity to it, why are not priest biologists championing it? Why this enormous vacuum of silence on the subject?

 

[buffalo]

If so, why are 100,000 biologists still employed and happily working away? Why are evolutionary biology conferences scheduled for years into the future? Why are there never any scientific conferences on the Flintstones-Genesis hypothesis of human origins? If your model has any validity to it, why are not priest biologists championing it? Why this enormous vacuum of silence on the subject?

Zombie Science is why.

Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Medical Hypotheses. 2008; Volume 71: 327-329

---

Summary

Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves. Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down.

 

[rossum]

Please everyone read my posting with qoutes from the men of science. this puts evolution to sleep.

You need to stop relying on quotes, they are a lot less useful than the creationist websites you get them from would have you believe.

For example:

• Sheep have souls:
  “one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep.” [KJV - Numbers 31:28]
• Jesus was a sheep:
  “John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God…’” [John 1:29]
• Jesus only saves Israeli sheep:
  “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” [Matthew 15:24]
• These sheep hate their parents:
  “For I have come to set a man against his father” [Matthew 10:35], [Luke 14:26]
• These sheep are all atheists:
  “There is no God” [Psalms 14:1, 53:1]

It is quite amazing what you can “prove” with out of context and misinterpreted quotes. Either that or a lot of humans are following a religion originally intended for an entirely different species.

Your quotes about evolution are just as convincing as my quotes from the Bible, that is not convincing at all. In a scientific argument it is the data that matters not quotes. Evolution has the data, young earth creationism does not. YEC loses.

rossum