Young Earth v. Old Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter algran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
…I may be getting the wrong information… please bear with me… all science text books represent evolution as fact; every program I’ve seen or try to watch on the science, history, national geographic… channels present all theories as fact; scientist have assured us that the sun will go nova or extinguish itself in a few more millions of years; scientists claimed that the universe was so old it was so decrepit (my term) it was actually folding upon itself (true, that was prior to the Hubble); the atom was the tiniest particle… oh, wait… no the neutron… or is it the subatomic particles… then there’s the “not possible for any living creature to exist in such…” and don’t forget the “yep extinct” or “nope no new species ever…”

I may be listening to the wrong scientists or maybe I do not speak their lingo but I do recall some historical accounts that blood-letting was the sure cure for all that ills you… and more recently “we have eradicated tb” (my term); oh, wait a new never expect strain just came back with fury… (no. not the horse).

…pilsner? …and here I was completely convinced that it was Jose Cuervo’s Tequila–they even had a catchy tune way back! 😛

Maran atha!

Angel
Regarding certainty on different things: I think you’re hitting the nail on the head. Journalists often formulate themselves like that. If you had spoken to the scientists who had actually done the work, they most likely would say nothing of the sort.

Cuervo! Cuervo! Good for your mojo, mojo! Heck, I don’t remember.
 
The evidence is the fact, Ed. Is it a fact that the sunrise is in the east and the sunset is in the west?

Science doesn’t have to prove that which is in front of your nose. Science will try to explain evidence, not create evidence. A fact is a fact.

Peace

Tim
Geez, I didn’t know that: “Science does not have to prove that which in front of your nose.” Thank you professor! I guess the many fossil human footprints found in the Paluxy river bottom in three different trails stepping in out of dinosaur footprints are really “in your face” as well as “in front of your nose.” By the way they look the same as those things you walk on if you haven’t noticed. For starters simply take off your shoes and count your toes.

That little gem of yours means no one has to write a paper and submit it to the ASA for their approval. Thank you Mr. Geologist and thank you Moses. 😃
 
Geez, I didn’t know that: “Science does not have to prove that which in front of your nose.” Thank you professor! I guess the many fossil human footprints found in the Paluxy river bottom in three different trails stepping in out of dinosaur footprints are really “in your face” as well as “in front of your nose.” By the way they look the same as those things you walk on if you haven’t noticed. For starters simply take off your shoes and count your toes.
Been there. Seen the old photos, looked the the trails. Not remotely like human tracks. Some “footprints” presented by people who claimed to have cut them out of rock, turned out to be carved. The tracks were first debunked, BTW, by YE creationists.

In the case of the Paluxy “man tracks”, even the Institute for Creation Research does not recommend they be used as evidence for men and dinosaurs living in the same time.

As one writer for the ICR remarked, they needed human tracks in the middle of the “Flood Sediments” like they “needed a hole in the head.” Such “evidence” conflicted with their claim that all the strata in the Paluxy River basin were laid down in the flood. And there is at least 100 feet of “Flood Sediment” above the present river bed.
 
Geez, I didn’t know that: “Science does not have to prove that which in front of your nose.” Thank you professor!
I’m not surprised that you didn’t know that. Science does seem a bit foreign to you.
I guess the many fossil human footprints found in the Paluxy river bottom in three different trails stepping in out of dinosaur footprints are really “in your face” as well as “in front of your nose.” By the way they look the same as those things you walk on if you haven’t noticed. For starters simply take off your shoes and count your toes.
Nope. Fake evidence does not count.
That little gem of yours means no one has to write a paper and submit it to the ASA for their approval. Thank you Mr. Geologist and thank you Moses. 😃
As if your submitting a paper to ASA or any other scientific organization is even a possibility!

I know that you have a problem with the fact that I am a geologist, but you really should try learning some. It would save you from some of your mistakes.

What is the title of the paper you have submitted and what is the name of the publication? I really am interested in reading it once it is published.

Peace

Tim
 
I guess the many fossil human footprints found in the Paluxy river bottom in three different trails stepping in out of dinosaur footprints are really “in your face” as well as “in front of your nose.”
If you are going to be a creationist then please keep up to date with what other creationists are saying:‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’

Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.

Source: Creation Ministries International - Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.

You can read the same piece on the Answer in Genesis website here. An argument that does not convince either AiG or CMI is hardly likely to convince anyone else.

rossum
 
… I do not see the scientific community searching for God through science; rather, I see it as employing science in their effor to exclude the existence of Yahweh God.
This is an interesting issue. How many people here feel that the theory of evolution was formulated for the purpose of denying the existence of God?

I think it might be a productive use of a few posts to determine whether there is any truth in this notion.

As we already know that Darwin held Christian beliefs it is hard to see how he could be accused of attacking God through evolution theory. Are there any writings, statements, quotes, that could document that any scientists intended evolution to be a weapon against religion?

Best,

Tor
 
May I point out that your knowledge level is not everyone’s knowledge level? The screed you refer to is still valid. It still is representative of the problem. But, here’s Ernst Mayr:

biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm

It is abundantly clear what the problem is. Note, in particular, the third paragraph under the heading “The Darwinian Zeitgeist.”

God bless,
Ed
 
May I point out that your knowledge level is not everyone’s knowledge level? The screed you refer to is still valid. It still is representative of the problem. But, here’s Ernst Mayr:

biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm

It is abundantly clear what the problem is. Note, in particular, the third paragraph under the heading “The Darwinian Zeitgeist.”

God bless,
Ed
Yes, big changes in our understanding of nature and man indeed. My understanding after reading the section is that Darwin wanted to remove God from science. Any objections?
 
My objection is that literally 99% of scientists believe in evolution. And you may say that it’s number games, but really, I think they know what they’re talking about, especially after nearly a couple centuries of study. I’d love to hear what creationists say is the reason none of these scientists have come out with a valid refute of evolution, and yet a band of religious people claim they do.

Please folks, realize maybe it wasn’t one gal and one guy and a talking snake, and maybe it conveys a moral truth instead.
 
More maybe-ism. I think Catholics should always hold to authenticate Church teaching. Adam and Eve were our first parents.

God bless,
Ed
 
Yes, big changes in our understanding of nature and man indeed. My understanding after reading the section is that Darwin wanted to remove God from science. Any objections?
In The Origin of Species, Darwin attributed the first living things to God. So although he recognized that God couldn’t be investigated by science, he wasn’t hostile to religion.
 
Ernst Mayr makes any argument of what Darwin believed moot.
Peace,
Ed
Ed, please explain to me whether you feel that science is a “religion” that competes for the faithful alongside the Church.
 
Darwinism is a religion. So is scientism. The very loud and clear message I get from this forum is the faith people have for science. It will find the answers. It will lead us into the future. There is love and worship and happiness over science.

Science is useful, technology is useful - no doubt. But it what is inside each one of us that is harmful. A secular example from Terminator 2 - “It is in your nature to destroy yourselves.”

Ray Kurzweil dreams of building an artificial human. Then some people will have what they truly want: a mind unsullied by God, pure logic, but all artificial. They will desire this more than anything. Why? Because they refuse to deal with their humanity as it is.

God bless,
Ed
 
If you are going to be a creationist then please keep up to date with what other creationists are saying:‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’

Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.

Source: Creation Ministries International - Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.

You can read the same piece on the Answer in Genesis website here. An argument that does not convince either AiG or CMI is hardly likely to convince anyone else.

rossum
Good morning. Just returned from a pleasant interlude by a lake and noticed right away that you ET’s sure like to have fun with quoting select disagreements amongst those of us who support Genesis 1-11 — like fossil human footprints with dinosaurian ones. This disagreement is due in part to a lack of a statistical amount of footprint data on the part of those pioneering Texans who each time they excavate they have to get permission of the land owner and pay big bucks. The footprint disagreement is a minor one compared to the disagreements between the many differing hypotheses of theistic and atheistic evolutionists — it’s like night and day.

Here is what AIG said in the link you provided. Do not use.
‘Paluxy tracks to prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’
and I quote:
“Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed—see Q&A: Dinosaurs.”

Since you like to quote AIG now read some of AIG’s arguments for the coexistence of dinosaurs with men, flood of Noah and a young earth.

Couple the above many arguments by AIG; the pioneering direct C-14 dating of dinosaur bone organics and bone bioapatite as well as other fossils; and, dinosaur depictions world-wide such as Egypt, Cambodia, Israel, USA, Mexico, Peru etc the only logical conclusion is that the existence of fossil human footprints with dinosaurs is not surpising. Therefore “It’s a young earth after all.”

I again repeat that none of this footprint data, C-14 data and Mosaics in Egypt and Israel can be forged; for example the “human toe tips can not be carved” in hard concrete-type limestone." It is only that when the original 16 inch long “pristine” human footprints next to dinosaur footprints were being observed by the press from Dallas TX in 1982 an evolutionary monitor claimed “I saw him carve the human-like toes on the elongate impressions” when in fact he was "cleaning out the hardpan clay in the ball of the foot and toe area. That “carving LIE” has permeated the discussion and has caused untold hardship for anyone trying to perform research there which is exactly why there is insufficient funds available to finish the research. :mad:

Ideally since it has now been confirmed there are fossil human footprints with dinosaur footprints on the “river bottom” [three trails] and “pristine ones” on the second strata on the shelves above the river it’s only logical to see what is on the third, fourth, and fifth strata. The CEM museum www.creationevidence.org ] can’t get permission to do.so; otherwise there might well be a “statistical” amount of data that would be the final nail in the evolutionary coffin. :cool:

LIke Cathllic philosopher, Professor emeritus Dr. Larry Azar’s book, “Evolution and Other Fairy Tales” suggests, evolution theory of whatever stripe is NOT a theory of origins. Furthermore, I would suggest that evolution of life from a common lancestor over billions of years is not even a good hypothesis no matter who claims it has merit. :eek:
 
This disagreement is due in part to a lack of a statistical amount of footprint data on the part of those pioneering Texans who each time they excavate they have to get permission of the land owner and pay big bucks. The footprint disagreement is a minor one compared to the disagreements between the many differing hypotheses of theistic and atheistic evolutionists — it’s like night and day.
??? All it take is one real human/dinosaur track to throw evolutionary theory into chaos. What does statistics have to do with it?
Couple the above many arguments by AIG; the pioneering direct C-14 dating of dinosaur bone organics and bone bioapatite as well as other fossils; and, dinosaur depictions world-wide such as Egypt, Cambodia, Israel, USA, Mexico, Peru etc the only logical conclusion is that the existence of fossil human footprints with dinosaurs is not surpising. Therefore “It’s a young earth after all.”
And you cannot show that a) you have done ANY valid sampling/analysis of C14 from fossils; b) that any of the so-called dinosaur depictions are actually that; and c) that any real human/dinosaur prints have ever been found.
I again repeat that none of this footprint data, C-14 data and Mosaics in Egypt and Israel can be forged; for example the “human toe tips can not be carved” in hard concrete-type limestone."
Prove it. Take some non-YEC scientists into the field to excavate these prints, dig them up and then let them analyze them on their own. Take some non-YEC scientists into the field to collect fossils that you will then carbon date and see if there is any correlation between what you find and what they find.

Repeatability, Phillip. It is what separates science from pseudoscience.

Regarding your claim that “human toe tips can not be carved” in hard concrete-type limestone.", I suggest you check out the Pieta in St. Peters. That is pretty hard limestone, or more precisely, metamorposed limestone.
It is only that when the original 16 inch long “pristine” human footprints next to dinosaur footprints were being observed by the press from Dallas TX in 1982 an evolutionary monitor claimed “I saw him carve the human-like toes on the elongate impressions” when in fact he was "cleaning out the hardpan clay in the ball of the foot and toe area. That “carving LIE” has permeated the discussion and has caused untold hardship for anyone trying to perform research there which is exactly why there is insufficient funds available to finish the research. :mad:
Well, just find more and have non-YEC scientists (not press), YEC folks and a videographer present during the excavation. Then you won’t have to worry about a new “carving LIE”.
Ideally since it has now been confirmed there are fossil human footprints with dinosaur footprints on the “river bottom” [three trails] and “pristine ones” on the second strata on the shelves above the river it’s only logical to see what is on the third, fourth, and fifth strata. The CEM museum www.creationevidence.org ] can’t get permission to do.so; otherwise there might well be a “statistical” amount of data that would be the final nail in the evolutionary coffin. :cool:
Once again, Phillip, it only takes one real set of tracks to be the final nail in the evolutionary coffin. Maybe if you could get a real non-YEC scientist on board you could get permission to excavate.

Of course I don’t expect you to do any of those things. I expect you to come back with some conspiracy theory that keeps the truth from being told or some other story like that. Besides, you would have to really produce something if you did as I suggest. That would be tough, wouldn’t it Phillip?

Peace

Tim
 
Good morning. Just returned from a pleasant interlude by a lake
Hope you enjoyed yourself.
Here is what AIG said in the link you provided. Do not use.
‘Paluxy tracks to prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’
and I quote:
“Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed—see Q&A: Dinosaurs.”
Did you actually read what I quoted from CMI? What is now CMI used to be AiG Australia and they have almost identical copies of the same document. I quoted the same paragraph as you quoted except for the last sentence, which is not relevant to Paluxy. My point was that the Paluxy evidence is not convincing so you would do better not to quote it.
Since you like to quote AIG now read some of AIG’s arguments for the coexistence of dinosaurs with men,
I have very little problem with the co-existence of dinosaurs and men; there was a dinosaur perched on my balcony earlier today, before it flew away. What you have to show is that men were alive before 65 million years ago - and nothing AiG has done shows that.
Couple the above many arguments by AIG; the pioneering direct C-14 dating of dinosaur bone organics
Carbon-14 cannot show that man is over 65 million years old as it does not go back that far.
and, dinosaur depictions world-wide such as Egypt, Cambodia, Israel, USA, Mexico, Peru etc
If we can see fossils and dinosaur tracks then the ancients could have seen fossils and dinosaur tracks. Legends of large birds, such as Rocs and the Thunderbird, were probably based on fossil dinosaur tracks which can look very like the tracks of a large bird.
LIke Cathllic philosopher, Professor emeritus Dr. Larry Azar’s book, “Evolution and Other Fairy Tales” suggests, evolution theory of whatever stripe is NOT a theory of origins.
Partly correct. Evolution describes the origin of species. The origin of life is covered by abiogenesis.
Furthermore, I would suggest that evolution of life from a common lancestor over billions of years is not even a good hypothesis no matter who claims it has merit.
Your personal incredulity is not a valid scientific argument.

I would suggest that the story of a worldwide flood within the last 4,000 years is an even worse hypothesis - where is your evidence for a universal genetic bottleneck in all extant tetrapod species? How do you solve the heat problem from all those meteorite craters and massive volcanic eruptions that we see in “flood sediments”? How do you account for any footprints at all at Paluxy in the middle of the flood when every land animal was either drowned or on the Big Boat?

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top