A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by KellyJay
A bunch of things, how about lets get specific in our charges and our
proof? It is unacceptable to say evidence shows something is wrong
without, A. stating what is wrong with what specifically B. going into
detail on what pieces of evidence shows it is wrong! If you are just
willing to make non-specific charges with non-specific backing of those
charg ...[text shortened]... n the
complaints you have instead of just making the claim science does
not back it up?
Kelly

"I submit to you no one knows the age of the earth anyone who does make that claim is delusional."

False. Radiological measurements together with atomic theory gives the current answer pf 4600 millions of year. If you dismiss atomic theory, then you dismiss a lot of things that rely on atomic theory, such as internet connection among many other things.

KellyJay, what is your view of the Earths age?

"A world wide flood,..."

There has not been any World Wide Flood since the first man was born. No observational data exist to confirm WWF, a lot of observational data exist to confirm the absence of it.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, I didn't include it in the opening thread. I agree that young earth creationists' views on science are crazy and frankly, deserving of pretty harsh criticism. You don't seem to be of that ilk though and you've made that clear in this thread and others.

What I think is funny and worthy of ridicule is the video that was posted having such a dishon ...[text shortened]... that proves them wrong is "just a theory" or "based on invalid assumptions".

"...I agree that young earth creationists' views on science are crazy and frankly, deserving of pretty harsh criticism."

The only reason I got into this thread was the hypocrisy of those who single out people
for their views and automatically claim the have bias, making that the only reason why
would disagree with some of the mainstream views on the topics we discuss here. You
have a great deal of bias too, and sometimes you jump to conclusions that you really have
no reason to given the points brought up in discussion. Assumptions get made as to why
people disagree with some beliefs all the time, and the motives for the disagreements
get brought up due to religion, when religion may not have anything to do with the
reasons for disagreeing.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
[b]"I submit to you no one knows the age of the earth anyone who does make that claim is delusional."

False. Radiological measurements together with atomic theory gives the current answer pf 4600 millions of year. If you dismiss atomic theory, then you dismiss a lot of things that rely on atomic theory, such as internet connection among many other ...[text shortened]... l data exist to confirm WWF, a lot of observational data exist to confirm the absence of it.[/b]

Radiologial measurements:
You know you are not wrong, it cannot be 5600 million years old?
There is nothing you don't fully understand that can make your
conclusions off by some factor?

World Wide Flood:
There are world wide flood stories all over the world, those suggest
a common event was witnessed at some point.

I suggest you submit your observation data instead of making a
claim you have it before you suggest we have to accept it as proof
against the flood.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Radiologial measurements:
You know you are not wrong, it cannot be 5600 million years old?
There is nothing you don't fully understand that can make your
conclusions off by some factor?

World Wide Flood:
There are world wide flood stories all over the world, those suggest
a common event was witnessed at some point.

I suggest you submit your obser ...[text shortened]...
claim you have it before you suggest we have to accept it as proof
against the flood.
Kelly

You know you are not wrong, it cannot be 5600 million years old?

We know to within a certain amount of error. Yes, we acknowledge that it could be within a range. It could not be 5600

There are world wide flood stories all over the world, those suggest
a common event was witnessed at some point.

There are flood stories from all over the world. Are they all WORLD wide flood stories? Floods also happen all over the world, it's no surprise that flood stories exist from all over the world.

Stories aren't sufficient evidence to prove something happened. In fact, they're remarkably unreliable.

I suggest you submit your observation data instead of making a
claim you have it before you suggest we have to accept it as proof
against the flood.

The fact is that we know what a flood does to land, rock, and the environs. A world wide flood would have very serious effects and we'd see those effects ALL over the word at the same time.

The proof that the world wide flood didn't happen isn't in a single thing that contradicts it, but it's in the fact that there just isn't any evidence to support it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"...I agree that young earth creationists' views on science are crazy and frankly, deserving of pretty harsh criticism."

The only reason I got into this thread was the hypocrisy of those who single out people
for their views and automatically claim the have bias, making that the only reason why
would disagree with some of the mainstream views on the to ...[text shortened]... religion, when religion may not have anything to do with the
reasons for disagreeing.
Kelly

I never claimed to not be biased. I am and I admit it. There isn't a person alive who isn't. I do my best to recognize it though.

, and sometimes you jump to conclusions that you really have
no reason to given the points brought up in discussion.

Please feel free to point those out and I'll apologize for them. However, you simply stating it doesn't make it so.

If you're referring to me interpreting your reference to "the word of god" as being the bible, I don't see how that is wrong. Unless you don't see the word of god as being the bible? I also asked you if I was mistaken in that and you haven't answered.

By the way, you still haven't answered the original questions I asked that you said you'd answer. Just saying. I'm still not expecting you to answer them, but still.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
We are talking about the time when Noa experienced the World Wide Flood. He didn't lived 600 millions ago. 😵 We're talking of some event that the creationists think happened not more than 6000 years ago.

Are we talking about World Wide Flood, then we have to stay on that topic.

Just pointing out that the concept of the zero WWF is not right, it happened at least once. A while back for sure🙂
One theory I have, totally off the wall, I think I have said it before:
There were events like the broken land bridge that the Atlantic ocean broke down that caused a massive flood lasting something like 10,000 years or maybe longer, that flooded the med, that MADE the med. sea.
So I was thinking that time frame was within the range of the ancesters of humans, like Homo Habilis and his buddies, who may have seen this real flood, it would have been a permanent thing for them, lasting many generations but may have fed into the group mind set and maybe have been passed down from truly ancient humans down to our generation as the WWF.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
You know you are not wrong, it cannot be 5600 million years old?

We know to within a certain amount of error. Yes, we acknowledge that it could be within a range. It could not be 5600

There are world wide flood stories all over the world, those suggest
a common event was witnessed at some point.

There are flood stories from all ov t contradicts it, but it's in the fact that there just isn't any evidence to support it.

Alright, you admit WE could be wrong about that date. I think we are
going some where now, but you feel it is impossible for you to be
wrong about the range, you know there is nothing missing, no mistake
that no one is aware of yet that could cause us to be wrong about the
range, the range is without a doubt NOT possibly wrong, it is dead on
right no way no how, can we be wrong about that!? Is it possible that
we can and should say, given what we think is true, we have this
date and the range of error is this according to our current tests and
that is really all we have?

I'm not looking for the same exact story, the fact that the world shares
flood stories should suggest there is something in the human history
that the world shared that could have been an event they all witnessed
but later due to the passage of time got altered here and there. I am
not also suggesting every flood story in the past is about "the flood"
but there are enough of them going around that suggests it is very
possible the same event is being described in many cases.

All we have with recorded human history are stories! If you are saying
that we cannot trust that, I'm not sure anything anyone suggests
should be trusted. I'm all for saying observational data is best, but
that leaves all your data that promotes millions or billions of years
out in the realm of faith, since that has never been witnessed only
suggested as being true.

What do you think you'd see after a world wide flood after a 1K years,
or 2K years, and why do you think that?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
[b]There is no thing such as a World Wilde Flood younger that 6000 years. There would be massive observations about such an event.

You mean like a hand full of people on an ark? 😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
Alright, you admit WE could be wrong about that date. I think we are
going some where now, but you feel it is impossible for you to be
wrong about the range, you know there is nothing missing, no mistake
that no one is aware of yet that could cause us to be wrong about the
range, the range is without a doubt NOT possibly wrong, it is dead on
right no w after a world wide flood after a 1K years,
or 2K years, and why do you think that?
Kelly

but you feel it is impossible for you to be
wrong about the range, you know there is nothing missing, no mistake
that no one is aware of yet that could cause us to be wrong about the
range, the range is without a doubt NOT possibly wrong, it is dead on
right no way no how, can we be wrong about that!?

You accuse me of misinterpreting what you say and reading more into things than there are and you do this? You are doing exactly that - and blatantly so.

we have this
date and the range of error is this according to our current tests and
that is really all we have?

Our tests and the research we've done is more than the bible that's for sure.

the fact that the world shares flood stories should suggest there is something in the human history
that the world shared that could have been an event they all witnessed
but later due to the passage of time got altered here and there.

No it doesn't. It suggests that everywhere in the world people have witnessed floods. It does not suggest at all that it was the same event.

there are nough of them going around that suggests it is very
possible the same event is being described in many cases.

No. You need evidence that they are referring to the same event.

Even if you accept that they may be the same event, we don't have physical evidence that this event actually happened no matter what the stories say. If there was a worldwide flood then we would see PHYSICAL evidence of it. We don't see that evidence.

I'm all for saying observational data is best, but
that leaves all your data that promotes millions or billions of years
out in the realm of faith, since that has never been witnessed only
suggested as being true.

You really think that only witnessed events can be determined to have any likelihood over another as having happened?

So if a tree falls in the forest and no one witnesses it, but we later come across it then it's equally as likely that it fell as if god just put the dead tree there. After all, NO ONE witnessed it so you have to go on "faith" to determine that the tree fell? That's just ridiculous.

We look at the world and see how the physical world works. These events in the physical world leave marks that show us what happened.

What do you think you'd see after a world wide flood after a 1K years,
or 2K years, and why do you think that?

I think we'd see evidence. If the world flooded then we wouldn't have fresh and sea water - all the water would have been mixed. That's one thing.

I am not a geologist and I admit I"m not an expert.

Hey, why don't you actually answer my questions. Will you do that?

Quid pro quo.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Radiologial measurements:
You know you are not wrong, it cannot be 5600 million years old?
There is nothing you don't fully understand that can make your
conclusions off by some factor?

World Wide Flood:
There are world wide flood stories all over the world, those suggest
a common event was witnessed at some point.

I suggest you submit your obser ...[text shortened]...
claim you have it before you suggest we have to accept it as proof
against the flood.
Kelly

Radiological measures whows that the Earth is 4600 millions of years using uranium-235's decay to lead-207 and uranium-238's decay to lead-206. Some creationists don't rely on radiological measurements because they think scientists are using carbon-14 methhod. This shows that creationsists don't know much about radiological measurements. Nor their reverends...

Legends say many things, no observations are supporting a World Wid Flood during history of man. Didn't you read my posting at page seven in this thread?

How old do *you* think the Earth is? When did human beings came to existance in your opinion?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Radiological measures whows that the Earth is 4600 millions of years using uranium-235's decay to lead-207 and uranium-238's decay to lead-206. Some creationists don't rely on radiological measurements because they think scientists are using carbon-14 methhod. This shows that creationsists don't know much about radiological measurements. Nor their reveren ...[text shortened]... w old do *you* think the Earth is? When did human beings came to existance in your opinion?

"This shows that creationsists don't know much about radiological measurements. Nor their reverends... "

Lets limit our discussion to what the creationsist here are saying, I can
say some evolutionist believe in everything from nothing, but that
does not mean that you do, or anyone in this discussion does either,
it is meaningless to the discussion at hand.

Where did the legends come from, my point was that the sources from
them that speak of a world wide flood could have come from the same
event. I read your post, observations if you want to limit all we know
to just that has the shortest time frame of all, the here and now, and
if you want limit observation to all points of knownledge you get very
little you can hang your hat on, including what you believe your dating
methods can tell you, since you have never observed over time the
rate of decay stay the same over huges lenghts of time without
wavering for whatever reason.

How old do *you* think the Earth is? When did human beings came to existance in your opinion?

I believe the earth is a few thousand years old and man
appeared just after the universe with the earth were created.

How old do you believe the earth is, when did life begin, and when
did man appear?
Kelly
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just pointing out that the concept of the zero WWF is not right, it happened at least once. A while back for sure🙂
One theory I have, totally off the wall, I think I have said it before:
There were events like the broken land bridge that the Atlantic ocean broke down that caused a massive flood lasting something like 10,000 years or maybe longer, that fl ...[text shortened]... set and maybe have been passed down from truly ancient humans down to our generation as the WWF.

But Noa wasn't there at that time, and that's crucial for the creationists.

Yes there have been som major flooding during geological timescale. The mediterranean is one major event. But to call it a World Wide Flood is to go far beyound creationists view.

I see your point though, but it is nothing to support the creationists ideas. A world Wide Flood is covering all the world during 40 days. There simply isn't so much water on earth. And then it strangely disappeared without leaving any observations of such an event is rediculus.

Creationists are anti-science, and they are very ignorant in the subject.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"This shows that creationsists don't know much about radiological measurements. Nor their reverends... "

Lets limit our discussion to what the creationsist here are saying, I can
say some evolutionist believe in everything from nothing, but that
does not mean that you do, or anyone in this discussion does either,
it is meaningless to the discussion at ...[text shortened]... old do you believe the earth is, when did life begin, and when
did man appear?
Kelly
Kelly

There are no legends about any World Wide Flooding. No human in those days was aware of the scale of World Wide. Floodings, local ones, are more frequent, and they can of course be the source of legends. But global ones? No.

Show me any sources supporting legends of World Wide Flood. If you cannot, then it's time for you to change your mind.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But Noa wasn't there at that time, and that's crucial for the creationists.

Yes there have been som major flooding during geological timescale. The mediterranean is one major event. But to call it a World Wide Flood is to go far beyound creationists view.

I see your point though, but it is nothing to support the creationists ideas. A world Wide Floo ...[text shortened]... nt is rediculus.

Creationists are anti-science, and they are very ignorant in the subject.

Stick to the topic will you, and stop with the "creationists are anti
science" crap. The fact is there is more than enough water now to
cover the earth, note; I'm not saying that the water has to reach
the highest mountains as they appear now, land masses can be
raised or lowered as well as water springing up from underground as
well as rain, we do not know how the earth was configured during the
flood.

You are assuming that all things as they appear now are as they
always were I guess. You assume otherwise when they fit your
belief system too, as in the planet must of been different when life
first appeared from non-living material here. Everyone has to
assume some things about the past were true in ways the are not
when it comes to beliefs about our origins it isn't just creationist,
but evolutionist as well that have that problem.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
There are no legends about any World Wide Flooding. No human in those days was aware of the scale of World Wide. Floodings, local ones, are more frequent, and they can of course be the source of legends. But global ones? No.

Show me any sources supporting legends of World Wide Flood. If you cannot, then it's time for you to change your mind.

There are more than a few legends about floods wiping out all life, as
I pointed out before, the stories will be different, but the fact remains
there are stories about 'a massive flood' that was more than just a
local one.
Kelly