The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Intelligent design Vs Evolution
| 388 | 55570 |
I just now found out about this forum and didn't notice a I.D. Vs E. thread so I decided to make one.
I am a Christian and believe in intelligent design is the way the world came to be.
What does everyone else think about this subject?
- 388 Replies
I think 20,000 years old is pretty far back, farther than 6000 or 12,000.
more like 20,000,000 years old.
Where?
This puts the oldest painting at 30,000 years old, with others at 17,000 and 15,000.
It could be as young as 6k or possibly old as 20k.
But not millions or billions? Even though scientists know mountains take millions to form to where they are now, using various different dating methods all coming to the same conclusion? See, this is what I don't get.
On that article:
Radiocarbon dating showed the images to be more than...
Sources for my belief that that kind of dating doesn't work:
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
-http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=23&m=1
-http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/carbon.htm
-http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
That is not true.
Yes it is. It assumes that the shrink rate is constant to calculate the maximum age of the Earth.
Yup :P
Did you read all 11 of my sources? Most of them had graphs or data from more recent reports citing that the sun is in fact either not shrinking or sporadically shrinking and growing. You're ignoring evidence again >_<
1, My evi does that too!
2. Fine I'll get more.
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ⦠eptics.asp
-http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/Ack ⦠Chap06.htm
-http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ⦠amp;ID=165
-http://thesop.org/story/science/2009/02 ⦠inking.php
On your sources, the answersingenesis ones about the sun shrinking . . . all of their references are from the 70s and 80s. Most of my sources use more recent data, which trumps yours. So no, you don't have significant scientific backup, or at least significant-enough backing. Your third source says that we don't know if the sun is shrinking and misuses the term 'evolutionist' which signifies at least some degree of ignorance about this argument. Your fourth source also only uses data from the 70s and 80s, meaning it is also trumped by my sources. And your last source backs up MY argument.
Doesn't seem like 12,000 years would be enough.
Exactly. That's why, as the 3 sources I cited on this matter say, the Earth is more like 4.5-4.6 *billion* years old.
1. Almost all of your sources rely on false dating methods.
Almost. Also, uranium-lead dating is far more accurate because it has a half-life of 50 billion years. And your evidence(well, you haven't cited your sources, so I guess you have none)is all based from either the Bible or outdated, invalidated reports from the 70s and 80s.
2. Quantity doesn't say anything. (You said yourself that the majority doesn't control what is true)
It says that I put in more effort to back up my argument, that there's more evidence out there pointing to my correctness, and also, I never said that, although it is correct that majority rules isn't valid. But my point on quantity shows that there's more evidence on my side that's valid.
Even though scientists know mountains take millions to form to where they are now,
God could have created them where they are.
using various different dating methods all coming to the same conclusion?
Are all of those radiocarbon dating methods?
Yes it is. It assumes that the shrink rate is constant to calculate the maximum age of the Earth.
No, it does not. The study said that. Not my argument.
The sun is getting smaller.
It says that I put in more effort to back up my argument, that there's more evidence out there pointing to my correctness, and also, I never said that, although it is correct that majority rules isn't valid. But my point on quantity shows that there's more evidence on my side that's valid.
Not always
1. If 100 people cite a study it is the same thing is 99 people cite i different study.
2. It might show you have more time on your hands to look up evi.
Are all of those radiocarbon dating methods?
No. There's nothing you can do about the uranium-lead dating - the half-life is 50 billion years, so even if the decay rate is somehow accelerated, it'll still have to contend with the fact that for all of the uranium-lead to be gone, the object in question would have to be 100 billion years old, or impossibly accelerated.
And don't say that god could make the Universe old, because like one of my sources said, that is a religious statement which has no bearing on a scientific argument like this is.
That and more. I realize back where you said that what it has given one time was false. It does that. However, when multiple methods all give the same results, you'd think something was going on. In this case, it's where the deepest base of the mountain was at least a million years old.
1, My evi does that too!
2. Fine I'll get more.
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ⦠eptics.asp
-http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/Ack ⦠Chap06.htm
-http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ⦠amp;ID=165
-http://thesop.org/story/science/2009/02 ⦠inking.php
I'll try to be as clear as possible.
CREATIONIST WEBSITES AREN'T PROVIDING VALID EVIDENCE!
They use outdated debunked research, quote mines, straw man arguments, and just flat out lies.
And also, that argument would be invalid because God could have created the formations in that state.
The would only make God misleading.
The evi still doesn't prove the earth is old.'
Ever bit of evidence we find indicates it is. It would seem all you are doing now is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA I'm not listening".
I say the earth is 12,000 years old because it's about where the dates line up in the bible. But the bible doesn't say the world was created on 12,000 BC 12:31 PM Friday March 10th.
Considering every bit of evidence we can find goes against this, this would indicate that the Bible got it wrong.
Many Christians claim the Bible to be to just be a moral guide (Personally think it even fails at this, but that's besides the point), as such it's really unnecessary for the stories to be true.
No, it does not. The study said that. Not my argument.
You are citing those as supporting your argument. For your argument that the sun is shrinking to be relevant at all to any YE theory, it would have to assume a constant shrink rate.
The sun is getting smaller.
This is the kind of ignoring I'm talking about. All of the 8 sources i cited on this matter use recent scientific data that say exactly otherwise, and you completely disregard it! I have clearly shown multiple times that the sun is not shrinking. I'm getting the feeling you're disregarding all of my evidence.
That and more. I realize back where you said that what it has given one time was false. It does that. However, when multiple methods all give the same results, you'd think something was going on. In this case, it's where the deepest base of the mountain was at least a million years old.
Or ten minutes!
Sorry
What used uranium-lead dating?
They use outdated debunked research, quote mines, straw man arguments, and just flat out lies.
That is a hasty generalization logical fallacy.
Unless you checked every single one of those sites and checked every single thing that it said.
And don't say that god could make the Universe old, because like one of my sources said, that is a religious statement which has no bearing on a scientific argument like this is.
That doesn't work. Evolutionism is a religion just as much as creationism.
Many Christians claim the Bible to be to just be a moral guide (Personally think it even fails at this, but that's besides the point), as such it's really unnecessary for the stories to be true.
If they believe that then they wouldn't be Christians.
Ever bit of evidence we find indicates it is. It would seem all you are doing now is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA I'm not listening".
LA LA LA- wait what? We both have evi don't forget that.
Also, being a scientist doesn't really mean much anyway. Joe The Blogger could be smarter than Dr Wacky. (Nto saying this is always true, but still...)
The would only make God misleading.
What?
You are citing those as supporting your argument. For your argument that the sun is shrinking to be relevant at all to any YE theory, it would have to assume a constant shrink rate.
Yes, and it does support my argument very well. If they say the sun is shrinking by 5ft per hour (or w/e is was) then it would be logical to think that
1. The sun is shrinking by that much
2. the sun is shrinking even if it's not by that much.
This is the kind of ignoring I'm talking about. All of the 8 sources i cited on this matter use recent scientific data that say exactly otherwise, and you completely disregard it! I have clearly shown multiple times that the sun is not shrinking. I'm getting the feeling you're disregarding all of my evidence.
I did not read all of your evi, but the ones that i did read said that the sun was shrinking.
Here's a few things about your infallible Uranium-lead dating:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_6.htm
That doesn't work. Evolutionism is a religion just as much as creationism.
There is no such thing as evolutionism! It works perfectly. Evolution is nothing more than how life changes over time! It has no bearing on this debate! Get that false information out of your head.
We both have evi don't forget that.
But my evidence is current, while yours is severely outdated.
I did not read all of your evi, but the ones that i did read said that the sun was shrinking.
no, none of my sources said that! They said that the sun's size is fluctuating! That is different. And all of my sources say that the sun has not been shrinking enough for the shrinking sun argument to be true.
Yes, and it does support my argument very well. If they say the sun is shrinking by 5ft per hour (or w/e is was) then it would be logical to think that
1. The sun is shrinking by that much
2. the sun is shrinking even if it's not by that much.
1) My sources prove that wrong
2) My sources prove that wrong too
The YE theory tied to this says that the maximum age of the Earth is around 20 million years because the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet/hour. For that to work, the sun would've had to have been shrinking at a constant rate. This is not true, as my sources evidence. You're even misunderstanding your own theory now!
I did not read all of your evi, but the ones that i did read said that the sun was shrinking.
Until you read all of my sources and show an actual understanding of what's on the table(because you're really not right now), you are no longer qualified to continue debating this.
The sun is shrinking AND inflating. It's pulsating - not continuously shrinking. I've proved this over and over again, and you're completely ignoring it.
You must be logged in to post a reply!