|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Light Time Problem | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Jar, evolutionists are the dishonest ones. Not only are
my views based on the Bible; they are also based on real science. I, like you and all evolutionists, believe in historicalscience. The big difference is that I put more trust in observational science (true science) than historical science. OS, for me, stands head and shoulder above HS,which is open to subjective interpretation. I could go on and on about how OS proves timeafter time that evolutionary concepts are wrong. Let's take just one example: Polystrata. Polystrata consists of fossils, mostly trees, butalso animals, that extend upright through multiple geologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being millions of years old. How a dead tree can stand upright for millions ofyears without decaying away is not acceptable to a sane, rational individual. But anyone who believes the fossil of dinosaurs that still have soft and flexible tissue after 75,000,000 years will believe in just about anything. In any event, the so-called geologic column, whichis/was based on assumption, was blown away by Mt. St. Helen's (MSH), as was the concept of uniformitarianism. In MSH's Spirit Lake there are hundreds of deadtrees that have become saturated with water and the heavy root end sinks down into the mud, and settles there. Many of these trees already extends through multiple layers of strata. Examples of polystrata fossils are found across theentire globe. They are the results of a global flood. I want you to fix this fact (and it is a fact) firmly in your mind and that what is happening in Spirit Lake is observable science-real science; not science that is polluted by presuppositions. People accept evolution, even when clearly disprovedby real science, because they refuse to accept the alternative. Their mindset is "I want it this way-not that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
quote: candle2 Do real scientists ignore the attempts of others to explain that their statements about science are just factually incorrect? Do you now understand that biologists do not say that organisms can give birth to a different species? So now you change the subject to something else that's been explained many years ago. In fact it was explained by creationists over a hundred years ago. Here it is - not that you'll even read it. "Polystrate" Tree FossilsJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9146 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Resorting to the gish gallop now.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As expected you have nothing of value to offer and simply repeat all the old lies and ignorance.
You can learn though but I doubt you can ever be honest even with yourself. You are simply a GOAT.My Website: My Website |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
candle2 writes:
Your views on thermodynamics are not based on real science. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that. Not only aremy views based on the Bible; they are also based on real science. candle2 writes:
No you don't. Have you ever observed water? The existence of water proves that your ideas about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are false. If simple structures - e.g. H2 and O2 could not spontaneously become more complex - e.g. H2O, then water could not exist. Your view is 100% opposite from observational science. Your view is 100% wrong. The big difference is that I put more trustin observational science (true science) than historical science. But you won't acknowledge that obvious fact, will you? Because you prefer creationist lies to real science."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
I need to leave for a medical appointment, but I'll be back.
Polystrate fossil claims are among the worst-documented in all of the creationist literature. I have looked the claim up in many creationist books and I never ever, not even once, seen a single one of those books cite any geological source describing the sites being referred to by creationists. I have also directly demanded that creationists who bring up this claim to provide geological sources (not creationist ones, since they only repeat the lies, though one of their very common lies is to list scientific sources in a bibliography that they have never read because they had stolen that bibliography from other creationists who had stolen theirs unread from yet other creationists).
So provide scientific sources which describe those fossils and the strata in which they are found. Also, geologist are not even remotely like you creationists. They are not blind brain-dead idiots who never ever bother to go out and look at the evidence (what you call "observational science" and which creationists never practice). Geologists actually look at the evidence and make actual observations. They can tell whether a layer had been deposited slowly or rapidly -- your lie of layers requiring absolutely uniform slow rate of depositation lasting millions of years is just that, a lie! And your " ... animals, that extend upright through multiplegeologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being millions of years old." Are you referring to the whale skeleton found near Lompoc, Calif? So tell us all about it. Tell us your creationist source's story about it. So that we can discuss it. Gotta leave now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
candle2 writes:
Polystrata consists of fossils, mostly trees, butalso animals, that extend upright through multiple geologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being millions of years old. Can you name even one verified polystrate tree where the layers have been dated? I have yet to meet a creationist who can name a single one.
In any event, the so-called geologic column, which is/was based on assumption, was blown away by Mt. St. Helen's (MSH), as was the concept of uniformitarianism. Was this the same event that produced polystrate trees without needing a worldwide flood? Mt. St. Helens poses a serious problem for YEC and flood geology because it demonstrates how these formations don't require a worldwide flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Polystrata consists of fossils, mostly trees, but also animals, that extend upright through multiple geologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being millions of years old. How a dead tree can stand upright for millions of years without decaying away is not acceptable to a sane, rational individual. The answer is that nobody says that a dead tree must "stand upright for millions of years without decaying away" -- except for a lying creationist! Layers are deposited at different rates, some rapid and some slow. Everybody in their first introductory geology course learns that. And yet creationists insist that (ie, LIE THAT) geology teaches otherwise, that all depositation is at a single continuous very slow rate such that a few feet of strata would take "millions of years" to form, thousands of years for each millimeter. Creationist Dr. Steve Austin, PhD Geology, claimed precisely that as "Stuart Nevins" in one of his creationist geology articles that I personally read. The Institute for Creation Research needed an actual PhD Geology on their staff in a desperate bid for respectability, one with credentials from a real geology department in a real university instead of the typical creationist fake "doctorate" from a diploma mill. So they hired graduate student Steve Austin to earn his PhD, which included paying for all his school expenses and supporting him in school. In return, he would join their staff after graduation and, while working on his degree, would write geology articles for them which appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. He created an anagram of his name to create his pseudonym, "Stuart Nevins", in order to hide his creationist identity from his real university professors. Bear in mind that when "Stuart Nevins" had written that article, he had already learned far more geology than just the first introduction to geology course. That meant that when he repeated the typical creationist lie of "a formation a hundred feet thick that took millions of years to form did so with each millimeter of rock taking thousands of years to form" (paraphrased slightly, but that was what he claimed) he did so knowing full well that it was a lie. Therefore, Steve Austin deliberately lied! I bring up Steve Austin's propensity for lying for a couple of reasons, one of which was in response to you repeating that creationist lie, which your entire rant about polystrate fossils depends on. Back on CompuServe on 29-Mar-90, we were discussing polystrate fossil claims. The creationist (a SDAist whose MO was to copy and post entire pages from creationist books so literally that he always included the numbers linking to footnotes (but never the footnotes themselves)), Paul Ekdahl (simply to identify him since his name appears below), had quoted from something that Dr. Steve Austin had written. Austin had included a reference to his "source": Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures: American Jornal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869. When I found that article in the university library, I found that Austin had lied about what it said -- why am I not surprised at yet another creationist lie? I've referred to that a number of times on this forum, the earliest having been in Message 116 on 05-Sep-2007:
DWise1 writes: Do you believe that evidence of rapid depositation invalidates modern geology? Could you please explain why you would believe that?I do hope that you will start that thread on polystrate fossils. That claim is so pervasive in the creationist literature and at the same time is one of their most poorly documented claims. I do hope that you will cite specific polystrate fossils along with their references, including scientific sources that also examine those fossils. That way, we will be able to examine the evidence. BTW, in 20 years I have only seen one creationist offer an actual citation for a polystrate fossil claim. That creationist cited Steve Austin of the ICR who in his Catastrophes in Earth History quotes from this article: Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures, American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869. When I looked that article up in the library, I found that Austin had selectively pulled out that quotation out of contex such that (as I try to remember back about 18 years) it mentioned the geological evidence of rapid depositation but ignored the article's explanation that that rapid depositation was due to local flooding and it furthermore explained how geologists tell the difference between rapid and slow depositation. Please note that Austin's misrepresentation of the Broadhurst article is the only creationist citation for a polystrate fossil claim that I have ever been able to find. Well, not counting a reference for the whale skeleton found near Lompoc, Calif, but that was nothing more that a two-inch announcement in an industrial chemical journal about the skeleton having been found and containing no other information. Now here's a more complete treatment, an email to a creationist (CC'd to an interested third party) in which I posted the entire exchange on CompuServe (email addresses removed for privacy):
quote: So the only creationist reference to polystrate fossils that I have ever been able to find just simply lies about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Answers, you must believe in theistic evolution (TE). You
accept that the earth itself is roughly four-and-a-half billions years old. I assume that you believe the six days (Yom) of creationwere of an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps up to 750,000,000 million years each. The day-age theory. It is true that "yom" can refer to a period of time otherthan a 24 hour period. However, when a number is used with yom it always indicate a 24 hour period. Also, when evening and/or day (light & dark) is used it refers to a 24 hour period. On day three of creation God made the dry land toappear. In addition, He created the tree; grass; flowers; and, herbs on the same day. The life giving rays of the sun did not reach the earthuntil day four, which according to TE would have been 750,000,000 years later. Perhaps you should check into the necessity of photosynthesis. On top of that, birds and other organisms responsiblefor pollination were not created until day five, which would have been 1,500,000,000 years later. On the 7th Day God (Jesus) created the Sabbath Day.And, in numerous Biblical texts God commands us to both remember the Sabbath Day and to keep it holy. In Exodus 20: 8-11, God commands the Israelites towork sis days and rest on the Sabbath. Do you honestly believe God was telling us to work for 4,000,000,000 years and then rest 750,000,000 years? If you really knew God's purpose in creating man youwould know beyond d a shadow of a doubt that God left nothing to chance. Before the world was even created Jesus knew thatHe would give His life to pay for our sins. Read 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8; and Acts 3:23. Humans are not to become angels after death. Ourpotential is far greater than that. We are to be born I to the God family. God says that we are to become His very sons. Jesussays that He would call us brethren (brother). God tells us that we will inherit all that He has. Healso tells us we will become far greater than angels, that we will rule over them. This is why character is of the utmost importance.We can only attain this character by having His precious Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Through His Holy Spirit we can attain fellowship with the Father and Son. Through His Holy Spirit God imparts His very nature to us. Little by little we take on His character. God is not like humans; He leaves nothing to chance.He has planned this out to the last detail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
This is why character is of the utmost importance. We can only attain this character by having His precious Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Through His Holy Spirit we can attain fellowship with the Father and Son. Through His Holy Spirit God imparts His very nature to us. Little by little we take on His character. So why then all the lies? Why do you creationists gorge yourselves on lies, swallowing camel-loads of them whole? Bathing in an ocean of lies? Why? Is that taking on the character of your god? What does that say about your god? At the very least, by using Christian Doctrine we can identify your god. The "Lord of Lies", which anybody having any familiarity at all with Christian Doctrine will immediately recognize as Satan. Except of course for those who follow him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4413 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
candy2 writes: Examples of polystrata fossils are found across theentire globe. They are the results of a global flood. No they are not. Multiple people have predicted that you will not be able to show us a single documented example of a polystrata fossil in sedimentary layers that have been dated correctly. The scope of your knowledge really sucks. You should be embarrassed. You have been caught, repeatedly lying to cover up your breathtaking ignorance of basic knowledge, yet we can see how proud you are of yourself.
candy2 writes: They are the results of a global flood.I want you to fix this fact (and it is a fact) firmly in your mind and that what is happening in Spirit Lake is observable science-real science; not science that is polluted by presuppositions. Oh gosh, it turns out Spirit Lake is not a global flood and real observable science, that you cited, proves you incorrect about global floods and fossils and geology. You have no supporting evidence whatsoever and the polluting presuppositions are all yours.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Note that I am not AnswersInGenitals. I am answering for myself.
Answers, you must believe in theistic evolution (TE). You
That the earth is over 4 billion years old comes from physics. It does not depend on TE or any other form of evolutionary thinking.
accept that the earth itself is roughly four-and-a-half billions years old. I assume that you believe the six days (Yom) of creation
I take the creation story to be story telling, myth making -- perhaps poetry.were of an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps up to 750,000,000 million years each. The day-age theory. It is not history. It should be trivially obvious from the writing style (genre) that it is not history.
On day three of creation God made the dry land to
Or perhaps you are the one who needs to think about photosynthesis. What you believe is clearly false. The creation story is mythology, not history.appear. In addition, He created the tree; grass; flowers; and, herbs on the same day. The life giving rays of the sun did not reach the earth until day four, which according to TE would have been 750,000,000 years later. Perhaps you should check into the necessity of photosynthesis. Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Out of the last 51 replies to you you've replied to only 8. I see that what people have been saying about you is true. I see no point in responding to you since you're unlikely to respond, and the few times you have responded to people you haven't addressed the evidence and arguments they've presented.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
NRW, the God that I worship says that in the beginning
He created everything. It's recorded. Whenever I open a book written by an evolutionist itbegins with: Life could have began;There's a good chance that; It is likely that; We're not sure, but life probably; Long ago and far away; This kind of reasoning doesn't instill much confidencein the reader. It's kid stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Percy, you make a good point. However, I do
read the replies. Perhaps, it isn't fair, and I don't mean it that way.But, you need to u/s that because someone hasn't replied doesn't mean that they have dismissed your side of the argument. I am still involved with a good deal of stuff, and Ican't just ignore everything else. Perhaps, I am wrong to post at all since I can't seemto find the time required to address everyone.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024