|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| fiveeagles wrote: |
Have you ever heard of the expression, "to agree to disagree"? Foundationally, he is correct on how the order of the universe came about. So he still has time to correct his thinking.  Look how far he has already come. 
|
Actually, you still have time to correct your thinking. You'll notice he's examined the evidence of evolution. You look at some guy doing stage magic tricks and conclude it's a miracle. Sad. |
What is sad is that you are closed to the evidence of creation. You don't even know the circumstances at this conference or many like it, but yet you write it off as magic tricks. |
What more do you need? A black top hat and a cape. Come on you can't serious believe this!
So if I bend a spoon and say Jesus gave me the power to do it, then you see a magician do it, you won't question my divine powers?
Come on man stop being a tool! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
edoras
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| fiveeagles wrote: |
Have you ever heard of the expression, "to agree to disagree"? Foundationally, he is correct on how the order of the universe came about. So he still has time to correct his thinking. Look how far he has already come.
|
Actually, you still have time to correct your thinking. You'll notice he's examined the evidence of evolution. You look at some guy doing stage magic tricks and conclude it's a miracle. Sad. |
What is sad is that you are closed to the evidence of creation. You don't even know the circumstances at this conference or many like it, but yet you write it off as magic tricks. |
What evidence? The evidence of an old earth and evolution found by the head of the Human Genome project? Spare me your sympathy and go back to figuring out how a guy can use basic stage magic tricks to make oil come from his hands. |
It seems like some people are more interested in mocking others than the real issues posted by the original poster. But in case anyone is intersted in evidence for a young earth you may wish to check out the following. (Note this is evidence, not proof).
--------snip
Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years�certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.
The earth�s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn�t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.
Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn�t have had time to escape�certainly not billions of years.
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star�the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.
The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1� inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon�not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric �dates� assigned to moon rocks).
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old�far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.
A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the booklet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.
Creationists admit that they can�t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments�evolutionists have had to abandon many �proofs� for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: �Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964�68 ) school is either wrong or significantly changed.� Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to �prove� that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.
Addendum: John Woodmorappe has just published a detailed study demonstrating the fallacy of radiometric �dating,� including the �high-tech� isochron method: The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837
---------
The above evidences are just some of the many. Other evidence for a young earth is dead things buried in rock layers layed down by water all over the earth. In other words, MASSES OF EVIDENCE all over the earth of a GLOBAL Noanic flood, as recorded in the Bible.
This gives much credibility to the Bible, which is Gods writtten Word explaining when and why there was a flood. No other book or religion gives a better overall account of the global flood and why there is death and suffering. The global food also gives credence to the fact that the earth was created by God and is ultimatelly owned by God. Since the bible also tells us that God is merciful and rational we can also assume he does not lie in his written word where the human chronologies appear. Using these biblical chronologies the earth can be dated to some 6000 years.
Search the above website (and http://www.answersingenesis.org/) for the recent article on why the biblical acount is the original and the epic of Gilgamesh is a fable/copy.
The bible also says that death and suffering are but a temporary thing and provides us with a way out of this temporary mess. What an awesome God!
You can either accept his offer or leave it. Simple as that.
Here is how you can know whether you are saved:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-dml/dml-y005.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edoras wrote: |
Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
|
If you do a bit of googling, you'll see all of those "proofs" are false.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edoras
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| edoras wrote: |
Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
|
If you do a bit of googling, you'll see all of those "proofs" are false. |
Are you confusing the word "proofs" with "evidences"?
Since you are contending that they are all false, it would be good if you could provide at least one example of where one of the above evidence is unrefutably false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edoras wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| edoras wrote: |
Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
|
If you do a bit of googling, you'll see all of those "proofs" are false. |
Are you confusing the word "proofs" with "evidences"?
Since you are contending that they are all false, it would be good if you could provide at least one example of where one of the above evidence is unrefutably [irrefutably] false. |
Alright:
| Quote: |
| Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old�far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age. |
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html
You need any more refuted?
Grab a look here first:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edoras wrote: |
| Since you are contending that they are all false, it would be good if you could provide at least one example of where one of the above evidence is unrefutably [irrefutably] false. |
Alright, let's look at these 'evidences'.
| Quote: |
| Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years�certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived. |
Incorrect.
| Quote: |
| The earth�s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn�t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster. |
Oops.
| Quote: |
| Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn�t have had time to escape�certainly not billions of years. |
Oh dear.
| Quote: |
| A supernova is an explosion of a massive star�the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion. |
Wrong.
| Quote: |
| The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1� inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon�not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric �dates� assigned to moon rocks). |
No, sorry.
And mindmetoo dealt with the salt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| this is the problem with this whole 'debate' or discussion. A guy/girl comes on here and posts something from a creationist website, and we're the ones who have to refute it, rather than someone taking one look at the link and saying, "this person is an idiot and is clueless". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| freethought wrote: |
| this is the problem with this whole 'debate' or discussion. A guy/girl comes on here and posts something from a creationist website, and we're the ones who have to refute it, rather than someone taking one look at the link and saying, "this person is an idiot and is clueless". |
Well, you know that was my first reaction. But of course, you never know. Edoras seems like quite a bright person and might end up checking out what's wrong with the information from answersingenesis.com. S/he may even learn something, if s/he is prepared to look at the actual science.
You know, I think this is one of the reasons why, apart from just being wrong, creationism is also bad for Christianity. Firstly, it makes a lot of honest, sincere Christians look foolish, not only to non-Christians, but to other Christians as well; and secondly, it means that a lot of intelligent, well-educated and scientifically literate Christians will end up having to make a choice between accurate scientific knowledge and their faith - and over a relatively minor part of doctrine at that. Ultimately I'd say Creationism does more to harm Christianity than anything else, and it will be a very divisive issue in coming decades. The New Atheism is in part a response to it, for example.
One funny thing though is that the Muslims love it, and are now using a lot of the materials developed by Christian Creationism to oppose evolution and other aspects of science in fundamentalist madrassas around the world. Oh, the irony. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
At least posters like "mindmetoo" and "gang ah jee", though apparently lacking faith in a personal God (sometimes offensively so ...) usually take the trouble to present some logical refutation of empirical scientific claims made by religionists.
They somehow let this one slide, though (though I still think that those studies with water are very interesting - if not sufficiently rigorous - and may be suggestive of subtle powers associated with consciousness...)
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/news/04-07/news1156.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| (though I still think that those studies with water are very interesting - if not sufficiently rigorous - and may be suggestive of subtle powers associated with consciousness...) |
Rteacher, I had a bit of spare time today, so I paypalled $350 to the Open International University for Alternative Medicine in India. They sent me a .pdf file certifying me as a PhD in Divine Neuropsychology, which I printed out and pinned to my bedroom wall. Then I spent the rest of the afternoon talking to water.
Here's what happened when I told the water 'Rteacher':
I think it likes you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edoras
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| edoras wrote: |
| Since you are contending that they are all false, it would be good if you could provide at least one example of where one of the above evidence is unrefutably [irrefutably] false. |
Alright, let's look at these 'evidences'.
| Quote: |
| Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years�certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived. |
Incorrect.
|
I did read through the first link you sent and had to read a long way to get through all the hand waving. Did you read right through them all, including the creationist ones?
The following is a snip from a more recent article than the one you posted. It fairly rebuts your claim of "incorrect". So I will not go any further. Full article is here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/
I have shown that the claim that 'all the above evidence is false,' is not true.
Please also note that I'm not saying I've proved a young earth through all this. I'm saying the evidence fits well with the idea of a young earth.
--------snip
CW: This choice of wording is subtly but significantly prejudicial, to the point of being misleading. An uninformed reader might think I had written about blood still dripping onto the floor, yet that was nothing like what I said. My article, to which he refers, was about the 1997 discovery, under the microscope, of red blood cells in a segment of unfossilized dinosaur bone. The article did state that the vessels were visible under the microscope, and that there was immunological evidence for the presence of the protein hemoglobin. In the RTB broadcast mentioned in the introduction, Ross ally Fuz Rana strongly implied that it was merely survival of the porphyrin (heme) ring, which is more stable than the globin chains made up of specific amino acid sequences. However, this refutation of a critic shows that in order to get an immune reaction to hemoglobin, one would need substantially more than a porphyrin ring and 3 or 4 amino acids.
This hemoglobin was associated with what I referred to as �the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells�. And that is exactly the case. Cameron Tsujita, a paleontologist at the University of Western Ontario in London, discussing claims that these are blood cells, says that he �can�t really think of what else they could be.�2
Interestingly, in the RTB radio interview mentioned earlier, Fuz Rana employed similar tactics by saying that �the young earth community is making the claim that what was found was an unfossilized T. rex femur that contained blood in it�. That sets up the listener nicely, so that anything other than flowing, gushing blood out of a totally fresh dino bone could easily be perceived as a creationist �distortion�.
He then says: �Well, actually, this is not the case. It�s an incompletely fossilized femur, which is very different from an unfossilized femur.� In fact, my article actually quoted Schweitzer as saying that �some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.� So anyone reading the word �unfossilized� in the next sentence would have been fully aware of how I was using the term. The organic material in that section of bone had not been replaced by minerals.
... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edoras wrote: |
The following is a snip from a more recent article than the one you posted. It fairly rebuts your claim of "incorrect". So I will not go any further. |
PUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHA. Your sense of scholarship astounds me. You've read one tract that tosses out a lot of errors and now you refuse to delve into why exactly your evidence is simply wrong.
Okay then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edoras wrote: |
I did read through the first link you sent and had to read a long way to get through all the hand waving. Did you read right through them all, including the creationist ones?
The following is a snip from a more recent article than the one you posted. It fairly rebuts your claim of "incorrect". So I will not go any further. Full article is here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/
I have shown that the claim that 'all the above evidence is false,' is not true. |
No, you haven't. In fact, you didn't read past the first couple of paragraph of the article I posted. Hand waving? Please. And you present Wielend's rebuttal to Moore as a counterclaim? Heh. Do you trust your family doctor's opinion on paleontology? No? Then why would you trust Dr Wieland? His only training is in medicine and surgery, after all, and he hasn't even practiced that for over 20 years.
But oh well. I'm sure your faith in your religion is strong enough to resist any scientific evidence any of us present here.
Last edited by gang ah jee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| though I still think that those studies with water are very interesting - if not sufficiently rigorous - and may be suggestive of subtle powers associated with consciousness |
I don't think you get it. He freezes water and then simply looks for the few crystals that confirm his belief, ignoring the thousands that don't. It suggests nothing.
Take that link's advice:
| Quote: |
| I have stopped using his material in my presentations after I was challenged and embarrassed in public due to my ignorance of the facts. Therefore I believe that it is better that devotees refrain from quoting his work trying to use it as scientific proof of anything. We can sell that to ignorant people, but it will greatly discredit us in front of anyone who is actually scientifically educated. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edoras
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="gang ah jee"]
| edoras wrote: |
No, you haven't. In fact, you didn't read past the first couple of paragraph of the article I posted. Hand waving? Please. And you present Wielend's rebuttal to Moore as a counterclaim? Heh. Do you trust your family doctor's opinion on paleontology? No? Then why would you trust Dr Wieland? His only training is in medicine and surgery, after all, and he hasn't even practiced that for over 20 years.
But oh well. I'm sure your blind faith in your religion is strong enough to resist any scientific evidence any of us present here. |
I used this article because Wielend's rebuttal to Moore illustrates that it�s still safe to say that the evidence is highly consistent with red blood cells having been found in T. rex fossils. After all, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is usually safe to say we have a duck.
Do you still claim thats its completely and utterly impossible that they are red blood cells? This would seem like blind faith to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
