Evolutionists Appropriating ID?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have never claimed to know how the universe was formed.

[b]You do not know how it started so all the pieces of the puzzle you imagine you have to put together how the universe got here may not actually be showing you what you think they are!
Now its your turn to be honest. Answer this honestly: are dinosaur fossils undeniable solid proof that an ...[text shortened]... uld possibly show you the universe was not
created.[/b]
And I have never claimed otherwise.[/b]

"So you are saying it is entirely possible that I could be wrong that dinosaurs once existed and there is some other reason why fossils exist? Can you suggest another rational explanation for fossils? "

I think you have me confused with someone else, I have not talked about
dinosaurs and fossils till you just brought them up.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have never claimed to know how the universe was formed.

[b]You do not know how it started so all the pieces of the puzzle you imagine you have to put together how the universe got here may not actually be showing you what you think they are!
Now its your turn to be honest. Answer this honestly: are dinosaur fossils undeniable solid proof that an ...[text shortened]... uld possibly show you the universe was not
created.[/b]
And I have never claimed otherwise.[/b]

Nothing you have as far as evidence goes could possibly show you the universe was not created.
[/i]And I have never claimed otherwise.[/i]

I'd beg to differ, you claim to know there was an ancient universe so you do
believe quite a bit about this. You think you have evidence to show you how
long everything has been here, as I have pointed out you do not know how
long everything has been here. You think have something to suggest that it
could not have been created intact so that it could support life at its beginning,
because of the way you view it and date it. You believe you cannot be wrong
about this, you are a true believer!
Kelly

"There is simply too much evidence for an ancient universe for it to be a mistake. "

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes they lived on the earth. What pieces are missing that would make you or
myself think there is some other reason for them being here?
Kelly

You tell me. You have claimed:

If the universe was created intact to support life at its beginning than NOTHING you are claiming is true about the distant past could be or would be true.

Yet here you are admitting that SOMETHING I am claiming is true about the distant past can be and is true. You are contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd beg to differ, you claim to know there was an ancient universe so you do
believe quite a bit about this.

Correct.

You think you have evidence to show you how long everything has been here,
Minimum age yes, maximum age no.

You think have something to suggest that it could not have been created intact so that it could support life at its beginning,
I have made no such claim.

because of the way you view it and date it. You believe you cannot be wrong about this, you are a true believer!
My claims are based on indisputable evidence. Much of which you, yourself do not dispute, but you are simply not willing to admit that it contradicts your beliefs.
1. Am I mistaken that you accept the existence of stars?
2. You have already admitted that dinosaurs existed.
You cannot admit 1. and 2. without violating your whole argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You tell me. You have claimed:

If the universe was created intact to support life at its beginning than NOTHING you are claiming is true about the distant past could be or would be true.

Yet here you are admitting that SOMETHING I am claiming is true about the distant past can be and is true. You are contradicting yourself.

There is a difference, one you seem to WANT to not see!
Where did everything come from?
Answer no idea!
Where do fossils of bones come from?
Answer bones.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is a difference, one you seem to WANT to not see!
Where did everything come from?
Answer no idea!
Where do fossils of bones come from?
Answer bones.
Kelly

I am perfectly willing to see it if you are able to explain it. So far you have done nothing but contradict yourself over and over.
You now claim to know where bones come from yet this completely contradicts all your claims about it being impossible to know what happened in the distant past and how witnesses are required to be sure of anything and how any other views are little more than fairy tales. So I say either admit that your belief that dinosaur fossils come from bones is nothing more than a fairy tale you dreamed up, or admit that your earlier claims are false.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is a difference, one you seem to WANT to not see!
Where did everything come from?
Answer no idea!
Where do fossils of bones come from?
Answer bones.
Kelly

1. Where does starlight come from?
Answer stars.
2. How does it get to us?
Answer at the speed of light.

Yet you claim that we cannot know this without personally witnessing it all. Oddly enough you probably dispute 2. but not 1. even thought there is plenty of evidence for both. The only real difference is that 1. does not directly come in conflict with your religion, but 2. does. Of course what you don't realise is that if we are all wrong about 2. then we are probably also all wrong about 1.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have never claimed to know how the universe was formed.

[b]You do not know how it started so all the pieces of the puzzle you imagine you have to put together how the universe got here may not actually be showing you what you think they are!
Now its your turn to be honest. Answer this honestly: are dinosaur fossils undeniable solid proof that an ...[text shortened]... uld possibly show you the universe was not
created.[/b]
And I have never claimed otherwise.[/b]

Since you admit you have no evidence that the universe was not created, then all you have is guess work when saying how old the universe and the earth is. You don't even acknowledge that scientists now also believe the stars are spreading out and moving away just like the Holy Bible says.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Since you admit you have no evidence that the universe was not created, then all you have is guess work when saying how old the universe and the earth is.

It simply doesn't logically follow. Just because I don't know when or how something started does not mean I cannot know anything about it. Both you and Kelly have actually admitted having knowledge of past events including World War I, so we all agree that the universe and earth are at least as old as 1918. Yet you both claim that that is nothing but guess work? The argument is illogical and you don't even follow it yourselves.

You don't even acknowledge that scientists now also believe the stars are spreading out and moving away just like the Holy Bible says.
I have not been asked to acknowledge it. Its not something I would have thought of acknowledging out of the blue because its irrelevant to the discussion unless you can give some reason why it might be related.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. That's not the way it works. There is no problem with Physics. It is the assumptions that cause the problem.

whats the problem with the physics rj? no links please.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It simply doesn't logically follow. Just because I don't know when or how something started does not mean I cannot know anything about it. Both you and Kelly have actually admitted having knowledge of past events including World War I, so we all agree that the universe and earth are at least as old as 1918. Yet you both claim that that is nothing but gues ...[text shortened]... se its irrelevant to the discussion unless you can give some reason why it might be related.

We have written records by eyewitnesses of when World War I started and ended, so we don't have to guess. I do not claim that is guess work. The guess work comes in when we do not have such evidence.

The Holy Bible says that God spread out the heavens. If that is true, then we can not assume that the stars were created in the exact location that they are today. This would mean the age calculated for the heavens and the stars would be affected by what our assumptions might be. Therefore, scientist who ASSUME are attempting to make an ASS out of U and ME.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
whats the problem with the physics rj? no links please.

If you will re-read my post it says there is no problem with Physics.

The problem is when assumptions are made. We are all guilty of making assumptions about things we don't know. It is only when the assumptions are correct that we can get a correct answer no matter how good our calculations and Physics might be.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We have written records by eyewitnesses of when World War I started and ended, so we don't have to guess. I do not claim that is guess work. The guess work comes in when we do not have such evidence.

Your argument said nothing about written records being an exception.
You said that not knowing how the universe was created implies the total inability to know anything about its age. Now you say that if we have written records then we can in fact know something about its age.
Since there is one exception, there may be more. What else might tell us something about its age without having to know how the universe was created?

The Holy Bible says that God spread out the heavens. If that is true, then we can not assume that the stars were created in the exact location that they are today.
Nobody is assuming that the stars were created in the exact location that they are today.

This would mean the age calculated for the heavens and the stars would be affected by what our assumptions might be.
No, it wouldn't because no such assumption is being made.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We have written records by eyewitnesses of when World War I started and ended, so we don't have to guess. I do not claim that is guess work. The guess work comes in when we do not have such evidence.

The Holy Bible says that God spread out the heavens. If that is true, then we can not assume that the stars were created in the exact location that they ...[text shortened]... tions might be. Therefore, scientist who ASSUME are attempting to make an ASS out of U and ME.

but you're the only one making assumptions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your argument said nothing about written records being an exception.
You said that not knowing how the universe was created implies the total inability to know anything about its age. Now you say that if we have written records then we can in fact know something about its age.
Since there is one exception, there may be more. What else might tell us som ...[text shortened]... y what our assumptions might be.
No, it wouldn't because no such assumption is being made.[/b]

You say, "You said that not knowing how the universe was created implies the total inability to know anything about its age. Now you say that if we have written records then we can in fact know something about its age."

The written records I was referring to was about when World War I occurred. We certainly know the Earth is at least as old as any written records by man. But that does not mean we can know the actual age the universe in that way.


In a previous post you stated, "If a star is 1 million light years away then the star we are seeing existed 1 million years ago. Its as simple as that."

What I am saying is that it is not as simple as that. The scientist have to make assumptions to calculate and make such statements. One of those assumptions is the locaton of the star in relationship to the Earth has always been the same from the beginning to the end. In other words, they are assuming uniformity.