Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

  1. #1

    Default age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Starting post it will be a 1v1 on the age of the earth aliens vs realism
    realism supports thousands aliens billions.

    Rules are 2 pages full maximum for debate it will end right there at maximum. Alternating post as well [not including this post lol] both will [most likely] be slow to respond to each other.


    • No copy and pasting, save for sourcing. If you have to source, use a spoiler tag.
    • Keep the topic concise. No meandering off topic or going into unnecessary detail.
    • No use of logical fallacy (this should be given). If logical fallacies are used, they will be called out, upon which the illogical poster has to either retract or redefine their position.


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









  2. #2
    Ancient Aliens's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Incagualchepec, Guatemala
    Posts
    3,215

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Thank you for posting the rules I outlined. All I ask is that you adhere to them!

    You can go ahead and open, as I have little to no clue what your position actually is at the present.

  3. #3

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    There are hundreds of dating methods that indicate a young earth and a universe that cannot be billions of years old, There are major problems with methods used to support a old earth [radiometric dating] Ill describe later. There are more indicators saying the earth is young than old,and more reliable so I think that gives a good indication the earth is young.


    Noone can know for certain the age of the earth it is outside of science,science is things we can test observe and demonstrate we cannot do this with the age of the earth none was there at its creation so all we can do is use indicators of its age not proof. Even if all the data points to a young or old earth it would still not prove the correct age because none was there to observe its formation,so any indicators [such as radiometric dating] must go under assumptions about the past.



    Here is a article on why most evolutionist believe the earth is old,and discussing with them I or any creationist will quickly see that this is very true of most all evolutionist
    http://creation.com/why-most-scientists-believe-the-world-is-old


    I will post against the indicators for old earth as they are braght up by alien.



    As I said there are hundreds of these but I will give just 10 reasons in this debate that I believe support a young earth here they are.



    1] c14 decays at a steady rate and has a half life of 5,730 years, so every 5,730 years half of it will decay away. A lump of c14 the size of the earth would decay away in less than a million years. Yet it is found in geological column in coal diamonds and other places over 70 times published in evolutionary journals. showing they cannot be as old as claimed.








    2]
    Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly. Giving a maximum age of 10,000 years

    10,000 years ago it would
    have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle.It has been measured since 1835 and has declined by 7% giving it a half life of 1,400 years archeologist have measured it was 40% stronger in 1000 ad than today.

    10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle. The inescapable conclusion we can draw is that the earth must be fewer than 10,000 years old.”
    Dr John morris geologist 2011

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    3]erosion rates of continents, the continents would have eroded 250 times over if they were as old as evolutionist claim.

    earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.
    using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years” and similar for all above land surfaces.

    As one evolutionist said “ if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
    C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264



    S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155




    4] moon earth system
    the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1˝ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces would have shattered it. 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 is the maximum possible age.
    I also recently email a tenured professor he told me it is estimated that the waves would have been a mile high near the roche limit, and we would have seen evidence of this in geological clomun,not to mention the drowning of Hugh numbers of animals from these waves.





    5]
    comets disintegrate to fast

    According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years.
    Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years,this is what causes the tails on the comets. So if the universe were as old as claimed why than are there still comets?


    6] Human population numbers


    A population of only .01% growth in human population numbers would give 10 to the 43 power number of people for evolutinst so if we have evolved for millions of years were are all the people?

    A growth rate of only .05% per year would fit perfect with the creation and young earth,much more r elastic than evolutionary numbers.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
    say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square meter per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square meters. If every one of those square meters were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043
    With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth
    http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people




    7]
    Salt in the sea giving best assumptions to evolutionist and ignoring some data for them, The salt in the sea would have accumulated in a maximum of 62 million years, far less than the age given by evolutionist.


    many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans.
    This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old.
    Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans.

    Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.


    the rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year

    assuming the oceans originally had no sodium and given the best possible assumptions and rates for evolutionist, than the current sodium would have accumulated in less than 62 million years. Far less than the 3 billion they claim the oceans to be.

    Also more recent studies show salt is entering much faster than previously thought, showing more groundwater which is higher concentration of salt is being discharged via river flow more than 40% than the previously thought 10%


    8] fossil soft tissue blood protein etc.
    many exspales here is one


    collagen [ a protein] found on fossils dated as 80ma , yet proven cannot last more than 2.7 ma frozen.,so we can test it decay in lab real science that gives maximum age of 2.7 million frozen best conditions possible, yet it is found on fossils dated millions of years old.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation30(3):12–15, 2008.

    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
    http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf




    9] geological features like flat gaps multilayer fossils etc.


    there are multilayer fossils most commonly trees that extend up through many layers of rock strata that are suppose to be millions of years apart, proving they formed rapidly and at same time




    Ager’s illustration—an old print showing fossil trees that appear to be in growth position at Nant Llech in the Swansea Valley, South Wales, UK. The trees are now preserved outside Swansea Museum.




    bent rocks without evidence of deforming showing they formed all while wet and at same time
    , suppose to have been laid down over millions of years.


    no erosion between layers showing long ages of time did not pass in between layer deposition.





    Knife-edge contact between Coconino Sandstone (top) and Hermit Shale (below), Grand Canyon





    10] ocean floor sediments

    sediments are being eroded from the continents by a average of 24 billion tons a low estimate.
    It is estimated that the ocean floor has a average depth of less than 400 meters.
    There is only one way to remove sediments from the ocean floor by subduction, it is estimated that about 1 billion tons per year of sediments are subducted.


    The other 23 tons accumulate at the ocean bottom, at that rate the sediments would have accumulated in just about 12 million years. According to evolution these processes have been acuring for 3 billion years.
    Last edited by total relism; September 20, 2011 at 03:34 PM.


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









  4. #4
    Ancient Aliens's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Incagualchepec, Guatemala
    Posts
    3,215

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Firstly, TR, I want to point out that you violated every single rule I explicitly outlined (in your very first post, no less).

    The most irritating part about your posts (and I am sure that the readers will agree), is that your formatting is akin to what one would expect from an autistic child. Your post is a convoluted mess: there are several different sizes, fonts, stylizations, and formats throughout it. It is also fraught will horrendous spelling and grammatical errors. Let me give you an example of proper formatting, hopefully you will emulate it:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Why the Earth is several thousand years old

    1) C14 decays far too rapidly for the Earth to be billions of years old

    · Blah
    · Blah
    · Blah

    2) Blah

    · Blah
    · Blah
    · Blah


    If you choose to continually use logical fallacy, copy and paste from creationist sites (I can see by doing Google searches on portions of your post that you literally rehashed articles from icr.org, answersingenesis.org, and creationism.org), and go into unnecessary detail, then I will be forced to take the gloves off.

    Anyways, for the sake of those reading this, I am going to summarize each segment and put the further details/criticism in spoiler tags.

    Here we go:

    Your Opening Statement – “There are problems with radiometric dating”


    Such as?


    Point Number 1 – “There is Carbon 14 in Diamonds that are older than the half life of Carbon 14”


    Carbon 14 can be produced in a variety of ways. Uranium contamination is one such contributor, and it is probably the source of the C14 in this case.


    Point Number 2 – “The current rate of decay in Earth’s magnetic field suggests that it is 10,000 years old”


    The keyword here is “current”, as the strength of our geomagnetic field is subject to fluctuation. While the cause and the rate of this fluctuation remains unknown, the geomagnetic field has been subject to increases in strength, decreases in strength, and even geomagnetic polarity reversals.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I have a minor quibble here. Your source indicated that the strength of our geomagnetic field has been studied since 1835, when, in fact, it has been studied since 1827. You should use better sources.


    Point Number 3 – “The average height reduction caused by erosion would have grinded the continents below sea level if the Earth was billions of years old”


    This is your worst argument, by far. Anyone with a high school-level comprehension of geology knows that sediment created by erosion goes to the sea floor (which you mention later on) through river deltas, etc. This sediment goes through the process of subduction, becoming magma. Then, the magma is ejected from volcanoes and oceanic rifts, recreating the eroded land. Think of it as a cycle.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    You sources math is a bit off here. I just did the calculation myself (which I will be doing from now on), and the continents would have eroded 214 times at the current rate of erosion (which wouldn’t necessarily be consistent, anyways). Again, you need better sources. Anyone with a calculator could figure this one out.


    Point Number 4 – “The rate at which the moon ejected from Earth indicates that Earth is no more than 1.37 billion years old”


    Remember what I said about checking the calculations myself? Well...

    The distance from the Moon to the Earth = 238,857 miles
    One mile = 63,360 inches
    238,857 miles = 15,133,979,520 inches
    15,133,979,520 inches divided by 1.5 inches per year = 10,089,319,680 (>10 billion) years

    That was using the same data that your site used to obtain it’s magical 1.37 billion year figure with (it didn’t input the increased rate of Lunas recession, either). Again, anyone with a calculator could figure this one out.

    In the primordial stages of planetary formation, when a Mars-sized object collided with our early planet, it ejected the matter that would eventually coalesce to become our moon beyond the Roche Limit (in other words, the moon didn’t magically appear at the Roche Limit and move outward at a consistent rate). This accounts for the discrepancy regarding the age of our planet as I calculated above. And in actuality (contrary to your link), the rate of Lunas recession would be slower than it is today, as tidal friction would have been lesser during its formation.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Regarding the “wave” theory that the professor mentioned to you: hell no. There was no life (nor water, for that matter) when the Moon was closest to the Roche Limit. That is ridiculous.


    Point Number 5 – “Comets disintegrate far too quickly for them to be as old as our Solar System when they come into proximity with the Sun”


    They sure do. But the funny thing about comets is that they only have trajectories that put them in proximity with the Sun when they have been moved by an external force (this dynamic is usually caused by collisions between Kuiper Belt objects). Otherwise, they generally drift in the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud, far away from the Sun.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I have no clue, by the way, where your study got that 100,000 year figure.


    Point Number 6 – “There should be more humans! Where are all the humans!”


    This is incredibly basic. It doesn’t matter what a projected populational growth rate is. If a member of the population starves, dehydrates, or is killed by other external forces (predatory animals, other humans, etc), it can’t reproduce. Tribes of hunter-gatherers were not able to collect a substantial amount of food, and this limited the size of their populations to relatively few members. It was only after the Agricultural Revolution (which was about 10,000 years ago) that we see a continual increase in the population of Homo Sapiens. This is because there was a larger amount of consistent food, and because the sedentary tribes were less prone to being killed by predators (as they lived in semi-permanent and eventually permanent dwellings).

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I liked the “this would be so much simpler if there was a massive flood 4,500 years ago” section particularly. As if Occam’s Razor is relevant to your point – I doubt you could prove that there was a global flood event, and it is a far more complicated answer than “they couldn’t get enough food for their population to grow”.


    Point Number 7 – “There is too much salt in the ocean”


    You forget (again) that while salt enters oceans, it is also removed via precipitation, continental uplift, etc.


    Point Number 8 – “Collagen was found on a Hadrosaur bone”


    I looked this example up, and what was found was a few isolated, mineralized fragments of collagen, not actual collagen.


    Point Number 9 – “Multilayer fossils indicate that strata are not as old as we think”


    The paleontological term for fossils such as this is “polystrate”. Polystrate fossils are widely recognized by the paleontological community and they are fully explained here.


    Point Number 10 – “Oceanic sediments have accrued too slowly”


    Remember point number 3? Oceanic sediment is subducted, and becomes magma.


    Overall, this was incredibly painful to sift through. Every single one of your examples was plagiarized from creationist sites. Please don’t make me do that twice.
    Last edited by Ancient Aliens; September 20, 2011 at 07:48 PM. Reason: Grammar

  5. #5

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    thank you for responding to what i say, first debate in my whole time someone has responded to all i have post thank you i was losing hope on this forum.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Firstly, TR, I want to point out that you violated every single rule I explicitly outlined (in your very first post, no less).

    The most irritating part about your posts (and I am sure that the readers will agree), is that your formatting is akin to what one would expect from an autistic child. Your post is a convoluted mess: there are several different sizes, fonts, stylizations, and formats throughout it. It is also fraught will horrendous spelling and grammatical errors. Let me give you an example of proper formatting, hopefully you will emulate it:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Why the Earth is several thousand years old

    1) C14 decays far too rapidly for the Earth to be billions of years old

    · Blah
    · Blah
    · Blah

    2) Blah

    · Blah
    · Blah
    · Blah


    If you choose to continually use logical fallacy, copy and paste from creationist sites (I can see by doing Google searches on portions of your post that you literally rehashed articles from icr.org, answersingenesis.org, and creationism.org), and go into unnecessary detail, then I will be forced to take the gloves off.

    Thank you for your generous helpful tips anywho i only copied off my usb port and how do you say i Brock any other rule? what logical fallacy please tell me?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Anyways, for the sake of those reading this, I am going to summarize each segment and put the further details/criticism in spoiler tags.

    Here we go:

    Your Opening Statement – “There are problems with radiometric dating”


    Such as?
    As i said ill bring them up when you use it to prove a old earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Point Number 1 – “There is Carbon 14 in Diamonds that are older than the half life of Carbon 14”




    Carbon 14 can be produced in a variety of ways. Uranium contamination is one such contributor, and it is probably the source of the C14 in this case.
    what is your evidence for this? there is none and strong evidence against this rescuing devise as this was already tested.

    here is a direct response under objections number 2
    The 14C was produced by U-fission (this was an excuse proposed for 14C in coal, also analysed in Dr Baumgardner’s paper, but not possible for diamonds). But to explain the observed 14C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Point Number 2 – “The current rate of decay in Earth’s magnetic field suggests that it is 10,000 years old”


    The keyword here is “current”, as the strength of our geomagnetic field is subject to fluctuation. While the cause and the rate of this fluctuation remains unknown, the geomagnetic field has been subject to increases in strength, decreases in strength, and even geomagnetic polarity reversals.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I have a minor quibble here. Your source indicated that the strength of our geomagnetic field has been studied since 1835, when, in fact, it has been studied since 1827. You should use better sources.

    its a overall decay correct? right reversals are accounted for its still a overall decay. Unitarianism no? not to mention dynamo fails badly and even if true still gives a maximum age of 98 million not billions


    as far as im aware its 1835 when first reported on
    K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, ‘An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1967


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Point Number 3 – “The average height reduction caused by erosion would have grinded the continents below sea level if the Earth was billions of years old”


    This is your worst argument, by far. Anyone with a high school-level comprehension of geology knows that sediment created by erosion goes to the sea floor (which you mention later on) through river deltas, etc. This sediment goes through the process of subduction, becoming magma. Then, the magma is ejected from volcanoes and oceanic rifts, recreating the eroded land. Think of it as a cycle.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    You sources math is a bit off here. I just did the calculation myself (which I will be doing from now on), and the continents would have eroded 214 times at the current rate of erosion (which wouldn’t necessarily be consistent, anyways). Again, you need better sources. Anyone with a calculator could figure this one out.

    Thats funny because i see it the same way any highschooler can see through your argument against erosion ages, we would have no old age layers because they would have been eroded and replaced many times over 250 in fact, not to mention we would still have no above water mountains earth etc they would have eroded away, along with all those fossils millions of years old

    214 if true very sorry thank you i was way off not eroded 250 times over its 214.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Point Number 4 – “The rate at which the moon ejected from Earth indicates that Earth is no more than 1.37 billion years old”


    Remember what I said about checking the calculations myself? Well...

    The distance from the Moon to the Earth = 238,857 miles
    One mile = 63,360 inches
    238,857 miles = 15,133,979,520 inches
    15,133,979,520 inches divided by 1.5 inches per year = 10,089,319,680 (>10 billion) years

    That was using the same data that your site used to obtain it’s magical 1.37 billion year figure with (it didn’t input the increased rate of Lunas recession, either). Again, anyone with a calculator could figure this one out.
    In the primordial stages of planetary formation, when a Mars-sized object collided with our early planet,it ejected the matter that would eventually coalesce to become our moon beyond the Roche Limit (in other words, the moon didn’t magically appear at the Roche Limit and move outward at a consistent rate). This accounts for the discrepancy regarding the age of our planet as I calculated above. And in actuality (contrary to your link), the rate of Lunas recession would be slower than it is today, as tidal friction would have been lesser during its formation.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Regarding the “wave” theory that the professor mentioned to you: hell no. There was no life (nor water, for that matter) when the Moon was closest to the Roche Limit. That is ridiculous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Point Number 5 – “Comets disintegrate far too quickly for them to be as old as our Solar System when they come into proximity with the Sun”


    They sure do. But the funny thing about comets is that they only have trajectories that put them in proximity with the Sun when they have been moved by an external force (this dynamic is usually caused by collisions between Kuiper Belt objects). Otherwise, they generally drift in the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud, far away from the Sun.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I have no clue, by the way, where your study got that 100,000 year figure.
    maximum age of long term comets i have herd 200,000 at best usually 100,000. however have you ever observed this oart cloud you talk as thoe you have, thing is noone has ever seen it or observed it it is imagined and believed by the faithful who need it for billions of years pure imagination. The kupitor belt helps not at all as well, as this has never been observed to do what you claim it can do and has the wrong compisition to be the origin of our comets in our universe.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Point Number 6 – “There should be more humans! Where are all the humans!”


    This is incredibly basic. It doesn’t matter what a projected populational growth rate is. If a member of the population starves, dehydrates, or is killed by other external forces (predatory animals, other humans, etc), it can’t reproduce. Tribes of hunter-gatherers were not able to collect a substantial amount of food, and this limited the size of their populations to relatively few members. It was only after the Agricultural Revolution (which was about 10,000 years ago) that we see a continual increase in the population of Homo Sapiens. This is because there was a larger amount of consistent food, and because the sedentary tribes were less prone to being killed by predators (as they lived in semi-permanent and eventually permanent dwellings).

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I liked the “this would be so much simpler if there was a massive flood 4,500 years ago” section particularly. As if Occam’s Razor is relevant to your point – I doubt you could prove that there was a global flood event, and it is a far more complicated answer than “they couldn’t get enough food for their population to grow”.

    First i offer a debate on noahs flood after this if you accept ill show you the evidence for a global flood.

    I was saying the current growth rate shows a constant rate from 8 people 4,500 years ago it fits the creation model.

    so the answer this you claim starvation etc. this is hard for me to accept, man grows to hundred maybe 40 than they all die off almost? than again than again etc for millions of years untill recorded history than they start the steady increse that we observe not to mention that would have drove us in extinction genetically because of close intermarriage and mutations.
    What of those that migrate to say asia europe out of africa etc they all over the world faced near extinction over and over? you would need a global flood to do that with a few noahs arks

    as responded in the article i linked
    Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

    and were are all the graves of these bodies that dies? as pointed out again in the article.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Where are all the bodies?

    Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the Earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Point Number 7 – “There is too much salt in the ocean”


    You forget (again) that while salt enters oceans, it is also removed via precipitation, continental uplift, etc.
    are you working off talk origins? had you read my writing on this you would see this is taken in account for as i mention how much is removed and i mention a few process not taken into account that would make it worse for you


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Point Number 8 – “Collagen was found on a Hadrosaur bone”


    I looked this example up, and what was found was a few isolated, mineralized fragments of collagen, not actual collagen.
    witch reference did you look up? are you denying that fossil contain these things? there are know over 40 finds of this or other similar structures that should not be on suposed millions of year old bones, tell me what your objecting to and ill respond.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Point Number 9 – “Multilayer fossils indicate that strata are not as old as we think”


    The paleontological term for fossils such as this is “polystrate”. Polystrate fossils are widely recognized by the paleontological community and they are fully explained here.

    please tell me were in the article i missed what wiki i mean the paleontological community said to exspalin this. All i saw was rapid deposition as i said.
    Not to mention you ignored flat gaps and no erosion

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Point Number 10 – “Oceanic sediments have accrued too slowly”


    Remember point number 3? Oceanic sediment is subducted, and becomes magma.


    Overall, this was incredibly painful to sift through. Every single one of your examples was plagiarized from creationist sites. Please don’t make me do that twice.
    Had you read my writing you would know this is included in and does not save the day for you. thank you for responding but you have not refuted any of them and i responded to all know please respond to why you think my responses dont answer your objections if you believe they dont.

    most all your objections would be answered had you actually read my post in full.The others i answered above


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









  6. #6
    Ancient Aliens's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Incagualchepec, Guatemala
    Posts
    3,215

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Sorry in advance to those who are reading this. This is going to be a quote-a-thon.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    thank you for responding to what i say, first debate in my whole time someone has responded to all i have post thank you i was losing hope on this forum.
    What can I say? I have the patience of a saint. Now, just so you know, I am having legitimate difficulty comprehending many of your points. I mean no offense by this, nor do I want this to effect the outcome of the debate, but is English your first language? Needless to say, I will still attempt to answer your posts in full, but if I misunderstand something, let me know.


    Thank you for your generous helpful tips anywho i only copied off my usb port and how do you say i Brock any other rule? what logical fallacy please tell me?
    My pleasure. I have to say, I am surprised and impressed that you followed my tips. Your points are much more legible and concise, even if your grammar is a bit...off.


    As to how you broke the rules in your first post:
    1. You copied many portions of articles on creationist sites word for word.
    2. I don't think I need to expound on why your 3 page wall of text wasn't concise.
    3. You used the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in nearly every one of your points (confusion of correlation and causation).
    While I am happy that you are making improvements, I will cut this debate short if it happens again.


    As i said ill bring them up when you use it to prove a old earth.
    I have no need to prove an "old earth" (though I will if you wish). All I need to do is disprove your nonsensical claims.

    what is your evidence for this? there is none and strong evidence against this rescuing devise as this was already tested.

    here is a direct response under objections number 2
    The 14C was produced by U-fission (this was an excuse proposed for 14C in coal, also analysed in Dr Baumgardner’s paper, but not possible for diamonds). But to explain the observed 14C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’.
    Firstly, you are going to need to provide a source that proves that uranium contamination doesn't effect diamonds, or that a sample would have to be 99% uranium for it to be effected by uranium fission. Frankly, you seem to be pulling these figures out of thin air (or, as is more likely the case, your site doesn't mention or counter this, so you are floundering).

    Secondly, you act (and this is true of the post I commented on, as well) as though C14 is finite. I've prepared a helpful graphic:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    its a overall decay correct? right reversals are accounted for its still a overall decay. Unitarianism no? not to mention dynamo fails badly and even if true still gives a maximum age of 98 million not billions
    I am sorry, I don't fully understand this portion.


    as far as im aware its 1835 when first reported on
    K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, ‘An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1967
    Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Carl Friedrich Gauss developed the instruments capable of measuring the Earth's geomagnetic field in 1827, according to Wikipedia.


    Thats funny because i see it the same way any highschooler can see through your argument against erosion ages, we would have no old age layers because they would have been eroded and replaced many times over 250 in fact, not to mention we would still have no above water mountains earth etc they would have eroded away, along with all those fossils millions of years old
    Again, geological activity (such as volcanism and plate tectonics) replenishes landmass faster than it erodes. This process is called the rock cycle. I learned about it in my first year of high school, how about you?


    214 if true very sorry thank you i was way off not eroded 250 times over its 214.
    Actually, I pulled that figure out of my ass to prove just how gullible and naive one's mindset must be to fully trust any figure randomly thrown at them on the internet.


    maximum age of long term comets i have herd 200,000 at best usually 100,000. however have you ever observed this oart cloud you talk as thoe you have, thing is noone has ever seen it or observed it it is imagined and believed by the faithful who need it for billions of years pure imagination. The kupitor belt helps not at all as well, as this has never been observed to do what you claim it can do and has the wrong compisition to be the origin of our comets in our universe.
    You may have "herd" that comets last 100,000 to 200,000 years, but you have yet to provide a source that validates this. Sure, you can say "this comet is losting X amount of mass per year, and has Y mass, so it should have evaporated billions of years ago". But you cannot say for certain that the mass being lost by a comet today is the same as it was billions of years ago. The comet in your example may be shedding a portion of it's mass that is more prone to sublimation (ice, for example).


    First i offer a debate on noahs flood after this if you accept ill show you the evidence for a global flood.
    I'm probably going to decline you, but it ultimately depends on how this debate goes.


    I was saying the current growth rate shows a constant rate from 8 people 4,500 years ago it fits the creation model.
    What the hell is "the creation model"? Do creationists even have an outlined theory, because all of your articles focus on attacking established scientific theories, rather than providing evidence that supports their own. It's worth mentioning here that the proposed "maximum age" of the planet varies wildly from article to article. This is highly amusing to me. According to a graph I read on one of the websites you frequently source, the Earth could be no more than 100 years old because of the halflife of an isotope of Aluminium. That is preposterous, I have living relatives who are over 100 years old.


    so the answer this you claim starvation etc. this is hard for me to accept, man grows to hundred maybe 40 than they all die off almost? than again than again etc for millions of years untill recorded history than they start the steady increse that we observe
    Again, the steady increase in population of Homo Sapiens happened because of the abundance of food provided by sedentary agriculture. Until this occured, tribes of hunter-gatherers only had as many members as they were able to feed. What is it about this concept that is so implausible to you, specifically?


    not to mention that would have drove us in extinction genetically because of close intermarriage and mutations.
    A populational plateau effect doesn't mean that the same 50 people would compose a tribe for 40 years and intermarry. People were mobile (because of their need to gather food), and interbred with other tribes. The mortality rate and the birth rate of these tribes were also proportionally high, as they lived in a harsh environment. This ensured that the population wasn't consistent, and that interbreeding didn't occur often. Besides, most human beings have natural instincts that prohibit incestuous actions, as you should (hopefully) already know.


    What of those that migrate to say asia europe out of africa etc they all over the world faced near extinction over and over? you would need a global flood to do that with a few noahs arks
    Again, I don't understand this portion.


    as responded in the article i linked
    Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.
    Why does it stretch credulity to the limits, exactly?


    and were are all the graves of these bodies that dies? as pointed out again in the article.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Where are all the bodies?

    Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the Earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.
    Bodies disintegrate. And we find thousands of artifacts from the Paleolithic Era every year. Those that we don't find have decomposed, were repurposed in milleniums past, or are still buried beneath thousands of years worth of soil and rock, waiting to be found.


    are you working off talk origins? had you read my writing on this you would see this is taken in account for as i mention how much is removed and i mention a few process not taken into account that would make it worse for you
    Again, I don't understand this portion.


    witch reference did you look up? are you denying that fossil contain these things? there are know over 40 finds of this or other similar structures that should not be on suposed millions of year old bones, tell me what your objecting to and ill respond.
    How exactly do you know that what is and isn't supposed to be found on fossils? At what point does collagen and tissue samples deteriorate during which conditions and why? These questions are still being asked and answered by the paleontological community, so I don't know from where you are getting your figures that indicate that anything shouldn't be found on a specific sample. Without specifying the conditions in which a sample was found, no proper conclusions can be drawn. Take resin, for example. It can perfectly preserve tissue samples from hundreds of millions of years ago. Your creationism article stating that the sample had tissue on it doesn't prove anything in and of itself.


    please tell me were in the article i missed what wiki i mean the paleontological community said to exspalin this. All i saw was rapid deposition as i said.
    Not to mention you ignored flat gaps and no erosion
    Polystrate fossils are formed because of rapid sedimentation, and can be seen as an extension of the stratum in which they were formed. They don't indicate that consequent stratums aren't as old as the fossils found within them.

    What do you mean by "no erosion" and "flat gaps"?

    Had you read my writing you would know this is included in and does not save the day for you. thank you for responding but you have not refuted any of them and i responded to all know please respond to why you think my responses dont answer your objections if you believe they dont.
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand this portion, either.


    most all your objections would be answered had you actually read my post in full.The others i answered above
    Trust me, I read your posts in full. I even went as far as to read the articles you linked. I stand by my original conclusion that the majority of your "points" are factless, illogical drivel.
    Last edited by Ancient Aliens; September 21, 2011 at 03:01 PM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    First I want to say again thank you very much, this is what i had hoped for in previous "debates" were we will actually respond to each other and argue over things presented. This is a debate agreeing to disagree and explaining why we disagree I love it thank you. Sorry for my bad grammar i do suck,not on purpose not trying to make it hard for you, I just have very little time recently and type so damn fast ill try to slow down.
    Also my responses will become slower with prarably days in between very busy with life, and those damn kids sure get in the way as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    My pleasure. I have to say, I am surprised and impressed that you followed my tips. Your points are much more legible and concise, even if your grammar is a bit...off.


    As to how you broke the rules in your first post:
    1. You copied many portions of articles on creationist sites word for word.
    2. I don't think I need to expound on why your 3 page wall of text wasn't concise.
    3. You used the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in nearly every one of your points (confusion of correlation and causation).

    While I am happy that you are making improvements, I will cut this debate short if it happens again.
    sorry for grammar its really not on purpose ill try better, number one small portions i did of of my usb port that small parts may have originated from websites,number 3 you will have to give me a example so i can respond.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I have no need to prove an "old earth" (though I will if you wish). All I need to do is disprove your nonsensical claims.
    Even if you could disprove any of my "nonsensical claims" [witch you wont be able to] that still in no way proves the earth is old or billions of years as you say it is, I do think we should finish this up before moving into evidences for a old earth otherwise this will get real sloppy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Firstly, you are going to need to provide a source that proves that uranium contamination doesn't effect diamonds, or that a sample would have to be 99% uranium for it to be effected by uranium fission. Frankly, you seem to be pulling these figures out of thin air (or, as is more likely the case, your site doesn't mention or counter this, so you are floundering).

    Secondly, you act (and this is true of the post I commented on, as well) as though C14 is finite. I've prepared a helpful graphic:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    references
    http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/...44ehu2bfh8eb25
    http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

    however as said it cannot contaminate diamonds,my guess is that diamonds are the worlds hardest substance so what could contaminate them?

    the response is under response number 2 as i said before.
    http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

    but read the paper free online were it says they tested this objection.

    I am able to be in contact with rate members if you have any questions on this further.

    and no you need to show that the contamination happened this is unsound logic here you are using, the data is against long ages so you need to show why it is constant with not assume something, I saw this in a debate once, the creationist said how comets are evidence against long ages,so the evolutionist said oart cloud,creationist said noone has ever seen it and it is imagined you need to show there is a oart cloud to supply comets. The evolutionist said the creationist had to disprove its existence this is like saying all watermelons are purple inside untill you cut them open to look, than saying disprove my theory no you would have to show they are purple before being cut open. see what im saying the burdon of proof is on you.

    your graph to me just looks to say how it gets in the ground and dead organism etc in the first place nothing to do with why its still there.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I am sorry, I don't fully understand this portion.
    I was saying reversals are accounted for and the decay rate from all evidence points to overall decay and the response that you are referring to is what is called the dynamo theory and has much evidence against and still only gives a maximum age of 90 million years.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Carl Friedrich Gauss developed the instruments capable of measuring the Earth's geomagnetic field in 1827, according to Wikipedia.
    so, when was it first used to measure the earths magnetic field?1835



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Again, geological activity (such as volcanism and plate tectonics) replenishes landmass faster than it erodes. This process is called the rock cycle. I learned about it in my first year of high school, how about you?
    I fully understand yet you are missing the points here, erosion is greater than is replenished, so you are lying there. and you ignore what i said, we would have no old age layers because they would have been eroded and replaced many times over 250 in fact, not to mention we would still have no above water mountains earth etc they would have eroded away, along with all those fossils millions of years old

    if what you said is true it would replace all the older sediments with new "younger" rock



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Actually, I pulled that figure out of my ass to prove just how gullible and naive one's mindset must be to fully trust any figure randomly thrown at them on the internet.
    first very nice, second notice i said if true I did not care to check your numbers as 214 or 250 would not matter at all to the point of disproving old ages.
    Than find me one place online that makes this claim? I did not get it from online, I use these dates and many others only after i have seen them in multiple places books,dvd,etc from different organizations i trust, than I have to see them go unrefuted in a phd vs phd debate if those are all met I trust them to be true i also check evolutionist sites like talk origins etc.

    not to mention you have trusted wiki online




    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    "An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions.

    In his article entitled
    Wikipedia lies, slander continuejournalistJoseph Farah stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewHYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640"&HYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640"pageId=83640


    bias at wiki
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
    read this source
    Abortion

    See
    Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion
    Anti-Christianity

    See
    Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity
    Conservapedia smears

    See
    Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears
    Conservative personalities and politicians

    See
    Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities
    Global warming

    See
    Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming
    Homosexuality

    See
    Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality
    Liberal Politicians

    See
    Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians
    Obama

    See
    Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama
    Science and Evolution

    See
    Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution
    http://www.conservapedia.com/DebateHYPERLINK "http://www.conservapedia.com/Debateoes_bias_impair_Wikipedia's_reliability?"oes_bias_impair_Wikipedia%27s_reliability%3F




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    You may have "herd" that comets last 100,000 to 200,000 years, but you have yet to provide a source that validates this. Sure, you can say "this comet is losting X amount of mass per year, and has Y mass, so it should have evaporated billions of years ago". But you cannot say for certain that the mass being lost by a comet today is the same as it was billions of years ago. The comet in your example may be shedding a portion of it's mass that is more prone to sublimation (ice, for example).
    source lets go to your trusted site wiki
    Comets have a wide range of orbital periods, ranging from a few years to hundreds of thousands of years

    no were will you find any evolutionist claim they will last millions or billions of years old 200,000 is the max i have ever herd anywhere from mutiple sources. As long as its in orbit in our universe it loses mass,and leves dust behind so yes we can tell, otherwise why do they invent things like the oart cloud?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I'm probably going to decline you, but it ultimately depends on how this debate goes.
    ok


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    What the hell is "the creation model"? Do creationists even have an outlined theory, because all of your articles focus on attacking established scientific theories, rather than providing evidence that supports their own. It's worth mentioning here that the proposed "maximum age" of the planet varies wildly from article to article. This is highly amusing to me. According to a graph I read on one of the websites you frequently source, the Earth could be no more than 100 years old because of the halflife of an isotope of Aluminium. That is preposterous, I have living relatives who are over 100 years old.
    the creation model never herd of it? ever watched any debates? were are you from? I would love to after this is done reference you to material if you are interested debates, seminars, books, videos, journals etc if your truly interested in learning about what creationist believe, creation is the only other model around that has thousands of phd scientist that support it and i believe is more convincing than evolution 95% of the time.
    Also science is used against evolutionary theories not "scientific theories" I offer a debate with you 1v1 after as well, is evolution based on scince? is there scientific evidence for evolution. Or does science disprove evolution. There is very much alot of evidence to support creation and i would love to refrence you to material.
    The whole earth cannot be over 100 years i think you have a big misunderstanding and feel free to reference me to wear and ill exspalin for you.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Again, the steady increase in population of Homo Sapiens happened because of the abundance of food provided by sedentary agriculture. Until this occured, tribes of hunter-gatherers only had as many members as they were able to feed. What is it about this concept that is so implausible to you, specifically?

    A populational plateau effect doesn't mean that the same 50 people would compose a tribe for 40 years and intermarry. People were mobile (because of their need to gather food), and interbred with other tribes. The mortality rate and the birth rate of these tribes were also proportionally high, as they lived in a harsh environment. This ensured that the population wasn't consistent, and that interbreeding didn't occur often. Besides, most human beings have natural instincts that prohibit incestuous actions, as you should (hopefully) already know.

    First there is no proof for what your saying this is assumed,second if there were hunter gathers etc for these long periods we would have found many bodies grave sites etc, human bones can easily remain 200,000 years and artifacts etc, instead only a few thousand showing the supposed long periods likely did not happen, also there is much evidence the "stone age" people were as intelligent as we are today just not as advanced as that comes with time building on earlier discoveries etc. they even kept records of lunar phases cooked etc yet suposivly 8 million of them living around the world could not figure out seeds from plants created new ones that gave more food?
    Then all a sudden right around the bible says man appears he starts a continual growth rate to present? all that time he could not figure out anything? see why this is hard to belive?
    Harsh environments today such as Africa India etc have higher birth rates than america britian etc and the gene pool would be quickly depleted and bottlenecks would happen often in your scenario of small group hunter gathers.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Again, I don't understand this portion.
    I was saying to keep the population low for all that time all over earth would need a near global flood.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Why does it stretch credulity to the limits, exactly?

    Bodies disintegrate. And we find thousands of artifacts from the Paleolithic Era every year. Those that we don't find have decomposed, were repurposed in milleniums past, or are still buried beneath thousands of years worth of soil and rock, waiting to be found.
    read above and this is a unobserved rescuing devise well find ham later, we have looked well find more but we should have found great numbers already if what you say is true.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Again, I don't understand this portion.

    read under my first post number 7 I show how much is removed and how it is calculated into the numbers,and how others are not calculated in helping you being generous to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    How exactly do you know that what is and isn't supposed to be found on fossils? At what point does collagen and tissue samples deteriorate during which conditions and why? These questions are still being asked and answered by the paleontological community, so I don't know from where you are getting your figures that indicate that anything shouldn't be found on a specific sample. Without specifying the conditions in which a sample was found, no proper conclusions can be drawn. Take resin, for example. It can perfectly preserve tissue samples from hundreds of millions of years ago. Your creationism article stating that the sample had tissue on it doesn't prove anything in and of itself.
    by the decay rate tested in laboratories we can tell how fast things decay. when something is observed in testing to decay at a certain rate and say decay away in 1 million years,than if a fossil said to be 70 million contains that product then the fossil is not 70 million years.

    here are many references this is not even debated, there are many exspales of this all over i cant believe you are questioning it somehow. ever watch a debate on the age of the earth?

    Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.
    "Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
    Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    many reference within
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/2923022/An...issues-and-DNA

    There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long


    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <
    www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c> Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009


    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <
    www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
    http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf




    It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s
    T. rex specimen was entombed.
    Nielsen-Marsch, C.,
    Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation30(3):12–15, 2008.





    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Polystrate fossils are formed because of rapid sedimentation, and can be seen as an extension of the stratum in which they were formed. They don't indicate that consequent stratums aren't as old as the fossils found within them.

    What do you mean by "no erosion" and "flat gaps"?
    I agree, but when they say those layers are separated by millions of years than it disproves that do you not agree?

    no erosion and flat gaps you would have to read my first postalso bent rocks please. there under number 9 after fossil trees, there are even pictures


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand this portion, either.
    my number 10, subduction is calculated into the numbers you would have known had you read my argument is what i was saying.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Trust me, I read your posts in full. I even went as far as to read the articles you linked. I stand by my original conclusion that the majority of your "points" are factless, illogical drivel.
    had you,you would not have replied with some of your "responses" so I see you have not refuted any please tell me witch ones you believe you have and why and anwser my responces.

    however i missed one and emailed a few people so here is what they said of lunar resesion

    This from a phd rate group scientist the c14 in diamonds guys

    Your debate opponent is dead wrong. The rate of recession would have been much greater in the past, when the moon would have been closer to earth. The rate increases strongly (as the inverse sixth power) as one shortens the earth-moon distance. Even uniformitarian articles on the issue acknowledge that, and they also give a few billion years for the time involved.

    Just challenge your friend to publish his revolutionary findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If he were right, the uniformitarian journals would be happy to lengthen the time by a few billion years. But that won't happen.

    A good reference for this is Don DeYoung's article "The Earth-Moon System", in the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, pp. 79-83, 1990,. The bound proceedings are available at low cost here:

    http://www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php

    and here is a free article i was referenced by author
    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...%20DeYoung.pdf


    this is a response to your direct numbers almost
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...unar-recession


    origin of moon problems
    today collision theory large object hit us partially melting earth mass debris in earth orbit formed moon.
    but computer modals come up with no moon or multiple moons. moon rock composition is much different from earths no iron no water a earth moving away or broken away would have to pass the break up limit were the rocks would be torn apart
    also were did the large object come from? probabilities is near zero. a collision could not create the moon







    its hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water... thats a really really difficult knot to untie”
    npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story id=92383117&ft=1&=1001
    24 may 2010



    much more under spoiler including origin of moon problems and lunar resesion
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    I would first ask what hard evidence does this person have at all for this ad-hoc special pleading argument for a Mars size object hitting the earth in the first place. The earth's orbit around the sun is an ellipse, but it is very near a circular orbit. Why is this important because to have such a collision you would need to account for all the kinetic energy this collision would cause. In other words, the earth being hit by something this large would change the earth's orbit so the earth would not have a near circular orbit around the sun.

    The same problem exists with the moon's orbit. It has almost a circular orbit around the earth. In all the computer simulations I have seen for this. Such a large mars size object would not leave the moon in a near circular orbit around the earth either. And one real caveat, many evo astronomers today say that if the earth was struck by an asteroid something as small as 100 miles wide it would destroy the earth. How could the earth withstand such a collision with a mars size object and survive to begin with???


    other
    All of the theories for the moon, like it breaking off from the earth, have been discounted by evolutionists. The only one left alive is the small planet colliding with the earth and the resulting dust and chunks making the moon. But, evolution requires it happened very early in earth history, not as recently as less than 2B years ago, as even your critic acknowledges.






    Last edited by total relism; September 22, 2011 at 01:41 PM.


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









  8. #8
    Ancient Aliens's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Incagualchepec, Guatemala
    Posts
    3,215

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    I want to apologize again for the delay in this response. As I said earlier, because of the length of my response, and because I was working in between writing the post, it logged me out due to inactivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    First I want to say again thank you very much, this is what i had hoped for in previous "debates" were we will actually respond to each other and argue over things presented. This is a debate agreeing to disagree and explaining why we disagree I love it thank you. Sorry for my bad grammar i do suck,not on purpose not trying to make it hard for you, I just have very little time recently and type so damn fast ill try to slow down.
    It's my pleasure, I enjoy debating just about anything with anyone. I do want to raise a point here before we get started. You need to refrain from sourcing biased sites (creationist sites) and linking biased articles; please state and defend your own opinions using neutral sources.


    Also my responses will become slower with prarably days in between very busy with life, and those damn kids sure get in the way as well.
    Don't worry about it.


    sorry for grammar its really not on purpose ill try better, number one small portions i did of of my usb port that small parts may have originated from websites,number 3 you will have to give me a example so i can respond.
    A suggestion, if I may: use spellcheck! If you have MS Word, copy and paste the text from your post so you can easily correct it. There are also many sites and apps specifically for spellchecking as well. While it may take slightly longer to compose your responses, I think that readability will only further your arguments.


    Even if you could disprove any of my "nonsensical claims" [witch you wont be able to] that still in no way proves the earth is old or billions of years as you say it is, I do think we should finish this up before moving into evidences for a old earth otherwise this will get real sloppy.
    Ok, for now.


    Oh goody, more creationist articles that I have to read through.


    however as said it cannot contaminate diamonds,my guess is that diamonds are the worlds hardest substance so what could contaminate them?
    Really? You think that hardness has something to do with a compounds susceptibility to radioactive decay?


    the response is under response number 2 as i said before.
    http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

    but read the paper free online were it says they tested this objection.

    I am able to be in contact with rate members if you have any questions on this further.

    and no you need to show that the contamination happened this is unsound logic here you are using, the data is against long ages so you need to show why it is constant with not assume something, I saw this in a debate once, the creationist said how comets are evidence against long ages,so the evolutionist said oart cloud,creationist said noone has ever seen it and it is imagined you need to show there is a oart cloud to supply comets. The evolutionist said the creationist had to disprove its existence this is like saying all watermelons are purple inside untill you cut them open to look, than saying disprove my theory no you would have to show they are purple before being cut open. see what im saying the burdon of proof is on you.
    Oh no, I am not asking you to prove the negative. I am asking you to verify your claim that diamonds are insusceptible to radioactivity - a topic that is corporeal and highly accesible.


    your graph to me just looks to say how it gets in the ground and dead organism etc in the first place nothing to do with why its still there.


    I initially posted the graphic to illustrate the fact that C14 isn't finite, a fact that you were suggesting wasn't the case.


    I was saying reversals are accounted for and the decay rate from all evidence points to overall decay and the response that you are referring to is what is called the dynamo theory and has much evidence against and still only gives a maximum age of 90 million years.
    Ok then, Show me the specific formula that incorporates polarity shifts and limits the "maximum age" of the Earth to 90 million years (which, by the way, is a far cry from your "thousands of years").


    I fully understand yet you are missing the points here, erosion is greater than is replenished, so you are lying there. and you ignore what i said, we would have no old age layers because they would have been eroded and replaced many times over 250 in fact, not to mention we would still have no above water mountains earth etc they would have eroded away, along with all those fossils millions of years old
    Before you go saying that I am a liar, look at your own source, which bases its estimations of basins. Basins are far more easily eroded than hills or mountains, so incorporating the erosion rate of a usually geologically inactive, highly erodible area into a formula to determine the erosion rate of all landmass is suppressing evidence.


    if what you said is true it would replace all the older sediments with new "younger" rock
    That is the case - in geologically and biologically inactive areas. In active areas the rate of replenishment counters erosion.

    You are still failing to grasp this concept in its entirety, so let's use a forest as an example. The trees in a forest act as a windbreak, hampering aerial erosion. Plants, animals, and fungi are very active in forests and their remains/feces creates a good deal of rich soil with which trees nourish themselves. When the trees leaves fall, they create a protective layer over the soil, and the soil continues to pile on top of itself, for millions of years. While the forest may have disappeared after this amount of time, the remains it left behind stay buried beneath the ground where they receive an enormous amount of pressure from the layers above it, eventually mineralizing each layer. While this is an over-simplified example, it illustrates how rock replenishes itself.


    first very nice, second notice i said if true I did not care to check your numbers as 214 or 250 would not matter at all to the point of disproving old ages.
    Than find me one place online that makes this claim? I did not get it from online, I use these dates and many others only after i have seen them in multiple places books,dvd,etc from different organizations i trust, than I have to see them go unrefuted in a phd vs phd debate if those are all met I trust them to be true i also check evolutionist sites like talk origins etc.

    not to mention you have trusted wiki online





    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    "An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions.

    In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continuejournalistJoseph Farah stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewHYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640"&HYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640"pageId=83640


    bias at wiki
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
    read this source
    Abortion

    See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion
    Anti-Christianity

    See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity
    Conservapedia smears

    See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears
    Conservative personalities and politicians

    See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities
    Global warming

    See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming
    Homosexuality

    See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality
    Liberal Politicians

    See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians
    Obama

    See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama
    Science and Evolution

    See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution
    http://www.conservapedia.com/DebateHYPERLINK "http://www.conservapedia.com/Debateoes_bias_impair_Wikipedia's_reliability?"oes_bias_impair_Wikipedia%27s_reliability%3F
    If you are uncomfortable with me sourcing Wikipedia (as you think it's biased), I will stop. However, I ask that you extend me the same courtesy and stop sourcing creationist sites, which are undoubtedly biased. Fair?


    no were will you find any evolutionist
    Whoa, evolutionists? What does evolution have to do with comets (astronomy)? Either you are grasping at straws here, or the term "evolutionists" is a catch-all phrase for anyone of scientific inclination whos studies/theories conflict with the bible. Which is the case?


    claim they will last millions or billions of years old 200,000 is the max i have ever herd anywhere from mutiple sources. As long as its in orbit in our universe it loses mass,and leves dust behind so yes we can tell,

    otherwise why do they invent things like the oart cloud?
    I am going to have to call you out on the "evolutionists invented the Oort Cloud" nonsense. The Oort Cloud (which wasn't "invented" by evolutionary biologists ) is theorized to exist for two reasons:
    • The existence of long-period comets.
    • Mathematical models that indicate the presence of matter in the outer reaches of our Suns gravitational field.
    I would point to certain post-Neptunian objects, such as Sedna, as indicators of the existence of the Oort Cloud.


    the creation model never herd of it?
    That was the point I was trying to make. I haven't actually seen an outlined model for creationism. Link me to the established creation model. Show me exactly how old you think the Earth is.


    ever watched any debates? were are you from?
    To be honest, I have barely heard of creationism and young Earth creationists, mostly because science takes precedence over religion where I am from. And, to be honest, I barely care. I have no doubts that creationism will dissipate with time.


    I would love to after this is done reference you to material if you are interested debates, seminars, books, videos, journals etc if your truly interested in learning about what creationist believe,
    See, this is the largest issue I have with this debate. You don't seem to be debating at all, you seem to be posting and reposting creationist articles. You are functioning as a walking advertisement for creationism rather than as a proponent of it, as I see it.


    creation is the only other model around that has thousands of phd scientist that support it and i believe is more convincing than evolution 95% of the time.
    Appeal to Authority, Bandwagon Fallacy.


    The whole earth cannot be over 100 years i think you have a big misunderstanding and feel free to reference me to wear and ill exspalin for you.
    http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth/

    Go to "Influx of aluminum to the ocean via rivers" on the graph.

    Yeah, according do that graph, the "indicated age of the Earth" is 100 years.


    First there is no proof for what your saying this is assumed,second if there were hunter gathers etc for these long periods we would have found many bodies grave sites etc, human bones can easily remain 200,000 years and artifacts etc, instead only a few thousand showing the supposed long periods likely did not happen,
    There's no proof? The Neolithic Revolution is nearly universally accepted within the archaeological and paleontological communities, and I haven't as of yet heard a single legitimate counter-claim...


    also there is much evidence the "stone age" people were as intelligent as we are today just not as advanced as that comes with time building on earlier discoveries etc. they even kept records of lunar phases cooked etc yet suposivly 8 million of them living around the world could not figure out seeds from plants created new ones that gave more food?
    You seem to be rather disdainful of early farmers. Are you aware of the fact that most grain crops (our agricultural staple, even today) took thousands of years to cultivate intho their current states? Some of the plants that early farmers cultivated weren't even originally edible. Take corn for example, which was originally a species of grass. It wasn't a simple matter of "figuring out that seeds from plants created new ones - as you said early man was intelligent and he undoubtedly knew this. The problem was transitioning between hunting for food that was necessary for the survival of a tribe (which took precedence over dicking off with seeds, no doubt) and becoming entirely dependant on agriculture.


    Then all a sudden right around the bible says man appears he starts a continual growth rate to present? all that time he could not figure out anything? see why this is hard to belive?
    Harsh environments today such as Africa India etc have higher birth rates than america britian etc and the gene pool would be quickly depleted and bottlenecks would happen often in your scenario of small group hunter gathers.
    ...No. The Agricultural Revolution took place anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 BC depending on the region, possibly earlier still (thanks to recent finds, such as Gobekli Tepe). The bible places the creation of the world sometime around 4,000 BC. That's not "right around the time man appeared in the bible", according to biblical chronology the Agricultural Revolution happened 6,000 years prior to the creation of the world (which is a huge amount of time for people who think the world is only 6,000 years old).


    I was saying to keep the population low for all that time all over earth would need a near global flood.
    I'm getting rather tired of this "global flood" claim as well. How exactly is it even possible for all the land masses on Earth to be simultaneously submerged?


    read above and this is a unobserved rescuing devise well find ham later, we have looked well find more but we should have found great numbers already if what you say is true.
    Look. You believe that biblical figures (Noah, Jonah, Moses, etc) existed, yes? Then where are they buried? The answer applies to our own topic: ancient human remains and gravesites deteriorate, and are buried beneath thousands of years worth of soil and debris over time.


    read under my first post number 7 I show how much is removed and how it is calculated into the numbers,and how others are not calculated in helping you being generous to you.
    I still don't understand what you are getting at here, I'm afraid.


    by the decay rate tested in laboratories we can tell how fast things decay. when something is observed in testing to decay at a certain rate and say decay away in 1 million years,than if a fossil said to be 70 million contains that product then the fossil is not 70 million years.
    There is just one (major) problem with your theory. "Decay labs" (whatever that is supposed to mean) haven't been studying biological remains for 70 million years. Everything we know about said remains is generated from the remains themselves. If this discovery does alter our understanding of the mineralization of organisms, then paleontology will respond. This will not, however, invalidate the established age of the Earth.


    here are many references this is not even debated, there are many exspales of this all over i cant believe you are questioning it somehow. ever watch a debate on the age of the earth?
    Not really. I generally watch things that are enlightening and/or entertaining.


    Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.
    "Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
    Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    many reference within
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/2923022/An...issues-and-DNA

    There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long

    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,

    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c> Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009


    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
    http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf




    It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.
    Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation30(3):12–15, 2008.


    Like I said, if (and take note of the fact that I am using the word if here) this does pan out, it will change the way we look at fossils, by showing paleontologists that such biological material doesn't always deteriorate after millions of years, depending on the condition. That being said, many notable paleontologists question Ms. Schweitzer's findings. Some believe that due to the presence of peptides, that the samples were contaminated, and that proper testing was not conducted on the findings.


    I agree, but when they say those layers are separated by millions of years than it disproves that do you not agree?
    As I said previously, polystrate fossils can be seen as an extension of the stratum from which they originated.


    no erosion and flat gaps you would have to read my first postalso bent rocks please. there under number 9 after fossil trees, there are even pictures
    I didn't mean to ignore this section of your post. I think I began commenting before you finished editing.

    Regarding the "bent rocks" and "no erosion": I'm not sure I understand what you mean, nor what you think these phenomenon indicate and why.

    As far as the "flat gaps": they are created in various ways. Some are created in environments that are unsuitable for the creation of stratum. Some are created because of layers that erode more readily than the layers around it. Some (the Grand Canyon is an excellent example of this), are created by thrust faulting.


    my number 10, subduction is calculated into the numbers you would have known had you read my argument is what i was saying.
    Again, link me the actual formula (with subduction included).


    however i missed one and emailed a few people so here is what they said of lunar resesion

    This from a phd rate group scientist the c14 in diamonds guys

    Your debate opponent is dead wrong. The rate of recession would have been much greater in the past, when the moon would have been closer to earth. The rate increases strongly (as the inverse sixth power) as one shortens the earth-moon distance. Even uniformitarian articles on the issue acknowledge that, and they also give a few billion years for the time involved.

    Just challenge your friend to publish his revolutionary findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If he were right, the uniformitarian journals would be happy to lengthen the time by a few billion years. But that won't happen.

    A good reference for this is Don DeYoung's article "The Earth-Moon System", in the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, pp. 79-83, 1990,. The bound proceedings are available at low cost here:

    http://www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php

    and here is a free article i was referenced by author
    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...%20DeYoung.pdf


    this is a response to your direct numbers almost
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...unar-recession
    So, you corresponded with an unnamed creationist with a Ph. D. in knows what, who validated your opinion? I must be wrong about the age of the Earth!!!


    origin of moon problems
    today collision theory large object hit us partially melting earth mass debris in earth orbit formed moon.
    I have no clue how this relates to the topic at hand (it seems like more rampant hatred of anything scientific), but I'll bite.


    but computer modals come up with no moon or multiple moons.
    Which computer models are those? Source?


    moon rock composition is much different from earths no iron no water a earth moving away or broken away would have to pass the break up limit were the rocks would be torn apart

    also were did the large object come from? probabilities is near zero. a collision could not create the moon


    Large, terrestrial protoplanets are theorized to be very common during the creation of a solar system. Much of our asteroid belt and many of our terrestrial moons are theorized to have been the result of the interaction between early protoplanets. We can actually see this dynamic in planetary nebula, during the formation of stars. Small, densely packed, young stars collide and form larger stars. This interaction is also theorized to take place with galaxies. As to the proto-planet in question - Theia - the chances of it hitting us were actually quite large due to the gravitational interaction between it, the Earth, and the Sun, and because it was on a near identical orbit with the Earth.

    The moon is nearly identical in composition to the Earth, and it doesn't have running water because it doesn't have a strong atmosphere or gravitational field, and because it's surface is directly exposed to meteors/cosmic radiation.

    The Earth was able to withstand the impact with Theia because it wasn't fully cooled - it was made of liquid rock at the time.


    much more under spoiler including origin of moon problems and lunar resesion


    I will address this in your spoilers.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    I would first ask what hard evidence does this person have at all for this ad-hoc special pleading argument for a Mars size object hitting the earth in the first place. The earth's orbit around the sun is an ellipse, but it is very near a circular orbit. Why is this important because to have such a collision you would need to account for all the kinetic energy this collision would cause. In other words, the earth being hit by something this large would change the earth's orbit so the earth would not have a near circular orbit around the sun.
    Who knows what the orbit of the Earth was like prior to a theorized collision? How do we know its orbit was nearly circular at the time?


    The same problem exists with the moon's orbit. It has almost a circular orbit around the earth. In all the computer simulations I have seen for this. Such a large mars size object would not leave the moon in a near circular orbit around the earth either. And one real caveat, many evo astronomers today say that if the earth was struck by an asteroid something as small as 100 miles wide it would destroy the earth. How could the earth withstand such a collision with a mars size object and survive to begin with???

    • The moons near-circular orbit is a product of the gravitational interaction between our Sun, the Moon, and our planet.
    • Again, our planet was able to withstand the impact because it was, at the time, superheated. It was composed of molten rock.
    • I like how he said "evo astronomers". Again, evolutionists (which means anyone who knows anything about science, apparently) have nothing to do with astrophysicists. This theory was created independently of the creationism debate; creationists give themselves far too much credit.

    other
    All of the theories for the moon, like it breaking off from the earth, have been discounted by evolutionists. The only one left alive is the small planet colliding with the earth and the resulting dust and chunks making the moon. But, evolution requires it happened very early in earth history, not as recently as less than 2B years ago, as even your critic acknowledges.
    This part is just plain insulting. Do not mistake the self-correcting nature of science (something that has served humanity well for hundreds of years) with retreating from a previous stance.

  9. #9

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Sorry for so long, and I will need to edit two responses soon or ill just put them in next one, sorry for long delay as well.

    sorry to hear about your logout,that use to happen to me all the time Also you seem more than any evolutionist I have met here as someone after truth, witch makes me very excited about giving you refrences to creation material that you may look at them and consider were the truth lies, you may if you do look into it later, still decide evolution is true, but at least I fully believe you will give it a fair deal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I want to apologize again for the delay in this response. As I said earlier, because of the length of my response, and because I was working in between writing the post, it logged me out due to inactivity.


    It's my pleasure, I enjoy debating just about anything with anyone. I do want to raise a point here before we get started. You need to refrain from sourcing biased sites (creationist sites) and linking biased articles; please state and defend your own opinions using neutral sources.
    I also enjoy debating many topic's as well, and watching debates both are fun. About bias sources You seem to know some of logic and logical fallacies etc have you learned of worldviews? It is extremely important to learn about and helps understand much in a debate of this nature. There is no such thing as a unbiased site place or person article etc. everyone is bias it is impossible not to be, because our worldview will always effect the way we see the world and the conclusions we draw from facts and observations. Evolutionist are bias creationist are bias, so I dont mind at all you using a bias site or reference because that is all there isI wont to see what the other side has to offer etc
    Ill give a example this is copy paste from a previous debate i did as this always comes up.

    It is important to talk on the effects of our worldviews have on this debate. Everyone has a worldview and bias,its our basic beliefs and understanding of the universe.
    When i observe a magician cut a person in half, i conclude it was a trick, that no one was really cut in half regardless of what i thought i saw.
    I draw the conclusion not because of the evidence but because my world view prevents me from drawing the wrong conclusion. If your neighbor says he saw a ufo last night your worldview will immediately kick in and help you process and interpret the evidence, as your neighbor provides more details you will begin to form hypothesis based on your worldview. Maybe she saw a spaceship top secret government aircraft, maybe she was drinking again, maybe it was just venus [because i do not believe in ufos].
    If you do believe in ufos and aliens than you will see this as more evidence to back up your belief.
    This is why creation scientist and evolutionary scientist can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusion, for example there are trillions of dead plant and animals laid down by water fossilized all over the earth that is a fact.
    Know based on the belief system of the researcher one says look it must have taken billions of years to create all these fossils, Unitarianism, slowly over millions of years.
    One animal fall in a lake and was buried and fossilized than later another was caught in a local flood than another by a surging river etc evidence for billions of years it had to take that long to create all these fossils what more evidence do you need for millions of years.
    Than another researcher says wow look trillions of fossils rapidly laid down by water all over the earth, just what you would expect from a global flood, what more evidence do you need creation is true.
    The evidence is the same the conclusion is different Based on their worldview.

    I also want to define science, science is things we can test, observe, and demonstrate, and knowledge gained from this.
    religion is beliefs about the cause concern purpose of the universe.


    Both creation and evolution are religions based on our worldview, we cannot test a monkey evolving into man or complex structures evolving or the big bang or origin of life fish turning into amphibians.
    Nor can we test noahs flood god creating etc. These are both religious worldviews, and this is not science vs religion its religion vs religion.
    One is based on the belief that this world created itself, mother nature created us no outside intelligence was needed only the laws that govern the universe, it created itself.
    The other is outside intelligence was needed to create the world, both are not scientific beliefs but religious worldviews.



    So what you have to decide is who's bias is correct not who is or is not bias.Also the atheistic worldview is self contradictory and irrational and cannot make sense of science ...but that is for another time

    I remember debating with Muslims over is islam is a religion of peace, and a athist said dont listen to the muslims there bias for islam and will try to present it as peaceful and that i should listen to a atheist. to witch I said no I want to here the best islam has to offer the best arguments so I go to Muslims not some atheist who already rejects Allah and the koran as the word of god, I never understand when people say not to listen to bias places as all are and why not? creationist will point out lies evolutionist teach and problems with evolution you would probably otherwise never here. Same with evolutionist will show problems and chalenges to creation why not here both sides I cant understand that. Let both make the best case they can.


    I know you dont believe the bible but this proverb i think all should here
    He who answers a matter before he hears it,It isfolly and shame to him.
    Proverbs 18.13


    evolutionist are very bias
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Even if all of the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
    Todd, S. C. 1999. A view from Kansas on that evolution debate. Nature. 401 (6752): 423.


    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a prioriadherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute,for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.



    Reference
    Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.


    evolutionist reject as a matter of printable not because of evidence “
    F.M harold 2001 the way of the cell molecules organisms and the order of life oxford university press new york new york



    "We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.




    A earlier response I wrote in a debate to this


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
    Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011 Harvard grad



    creationist started science all major branches of science, deal with what is being said not who it comes from, they do that in a attempt to dismiss the evidence to attack the source.
    They cannot deal with the evidence so they attack the source, one way to tell is to watch those phd vs phd debates to see who's side holds up, the creation side is verified over and over again. Also read the bios of the creationist they publish in secular journals all the time some have hundreds of published works.
    Also when I get something from a evolutionist source I dont cover my ears and say no get that away from me my high priest wont let me read it, I say I would love to hear it your opinion and conclusion of the evidence.
    Most all creation material originates in secular journals, creationist also publish in evolutionary journals all the time.
    It is unscientific to not consider a possibility because of your religious beliefs they are exposing there bias not even considering another option to their atheistic materialistic belief system.
    They want you to leave education and hearing all views and join in there indoctrination so you believe as they do.
    Evolutionist want you to believe you appendix is useless that you have gills like a fish, that a loss is a gain, a tooth of a pig is missing link between man and monkey among many other lies and distortions of evidence.



    thanks


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    A suggestion, if I may: use spellcheck! If you have MS Word, copy and paste the text from your post so you can easily correct it. There are also many sites and apps specifically for spellchecking as well. While it may take slightly longer to compose your responses, I think that readability will only further your arguments.

    Thanks I actually do have it but it only will stay with one misspelled at a time, so while im typing like I gota run and take a dum% I will not look up to see earlier misspelled words because I type so many, real life im relly not like this....I'm much worse



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Oh goody, more creationist articles that I have to read through.

    I believe you can get info from evolutionary references if you prefer


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Really? You think that hardness has something to do with a compounds susceptibility to radioactive decay?

    I am awaiting response on a email [from a rate group member]and will edit when i can post probably today,this still would not exspalin it as you need to show evidence for it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Oh no, I am not asking you to prove the negative. I am asking you to verify your claim that diamonds are insusceptible to radioactivity - a topic that is corporeal and highly accesible.

    Again you have to show that they have been not the other way around,first that it is possible than that they have been




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I initially posted the graphic to illustrate the fact that C14 isn't finite, a fact that you were suggesting wasn't the case.

    But c14 will decay,c14 will not last forever it will always decay and in objects millions or billions of years old if true would not be found, yes c14 always is being added, but not to these objects deep in geolgical time you seem knowledgeable you should know that correct,unless im missing something your saying let me know.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Ok then, Show me the specific formula that incorporates polarity shifts and limits the "maximum age" of the Earth to 90 million years (which, by the way, is a far cry from your "thousands of years").

    Show me a evolutionary model that has evidence to support it? the evidence suports the constant overall decay oviusly of the creation model, not to mention the creation model has sucsefully predicted something like 7 planets and 2 moons acuralty the strength of there magnetic feilds while the evolutnary model has been was off.


    all references within that you will need.
    http://creation.com/the-earths-magne...th-is-young#f8

    another good reference would be
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...the-universe-2

    look under
    Getting Around the Magnetic Field Evidence and

    Magnetic Dynamo Versus Magnetic Decay



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Before you go saying that I am a liar, look at your own source, which bases its estimations of basins. Basins are far more easily eroded than hills or mountains, so incorporating the erosion rate of a usually geologically inactive, highly erodible area into a formula to determine the erosion rate of all landmass is suppressing evidence.

    you did not answer what i said that erosion is greater,but yes they measure basins that is total amount of erosion [done 12 times by evolutionist to get numbers] of all landscape, so they are not selecting data, the evolutionist recognize this as a problem as well, and what i did not say was taking the lowest possible numbers of erosion of any surface of 1mm per thousand years would give a maximum age of 623 million years, however this is not realistic as it takes lowest erosion found anywhere and applies to all earths surface, not to mention things like catastrophic erosion from hurricanes floods etc when rates are increased by Hugh amounts, and mountain areas such as himalayas appalachians, and the caledonides have rates of 1,000mm
    H.W Menard 1961 some rates of erosion journal of geology 69 154-161



    alot more than norm so im not sure what your saying about mountains. Also you ignore what i said the layers would have been replaced over and over by newer rock and the top layers eroded away.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    That is the case - in geologically and biologically inactive areas. In active areas the rate of replenishment counters erosion.

    You are still failing to grasp this concept in its entirety, so let's use a forest as an example. The trees in a forest act as a windbreak, hampering aerial erosion. Plants, animals, and fungi are very active in forests and their remains/feces creates a good deal of rich soil with which trees nourish themselves. When the trees leaves fall, they create a protective layer over the soil, and the soil continues to pile on top of itself, for millions of years. While the forest may have disappeared after this amount of time, the remains it left behind stay buried beneath the ground where they receive an enormous amount of pressure from the layers above it, eventually mineralizing each layer. While this is an over-simplified example, it illustrates how rock replenishes itself.
    Let me tell you of erosion, water falls caries sediments to the ocean via rivers it is measured and the total height of continents is reduced, give it enough time all will erode to the sea, give it the age evolutionist claim big problem.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    If you are uncomfortable with me sourcing Wikipedia (as you think it's biased), I will stop. However, I ask that you extend me the same courtesy and stop sourcing creationist sites, which are undoubtedly biased. Fair?

    not at all you can use any source you wish, i was just pointing out the contradiction or self refuting nature of your statement, as for biases I replyed at beginning of post.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Whoa, evolutionists? What does evolution have to do with comets (astronomy)? Either you are grasping at straws here, or the term "evolutionists" is a catch-all phrase for anyone of scientific inclination whos studies/theories conflict with the bible. Which is the case?
    neither,evolution is a belief system a worldview,that the world we live in created itself [read my worldviews bias response] "evolution" the model on origins is just the result of the worldview. That all life created itself from nothing no creator materialistic naturalistic starting assumptions, than go and try to exspalin the world around us with those beliefs, If the world was not created than evolution and big bang etc is the only other way its one or the other.
    It is not based on science but worldviews, were talking here of a great exsaple the oart cloud, you claim its a "scientific" study or theory,yet there is nothing scientific about it, it is not observed never has been, it is only believed to be there based on naturalistic materialistic assumptions that the world is billions of years old, so there must be some kind of "oart cloud" supplying new comets, and anyone who does not have faith in the oart cloud [creationist] are called unscientific and bible thumpers. I very much enjoy debating with you and would love to offer if you are willing a 1v1 creation vs evolution, with break in between. I feel it would be very productive for both.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I am going to have to call you out on the "evolutionists invented the Oort Cloud" nonsense. The Oort Cloud (which wasn't "invented" by evolutionary biologists ) is theorized to exist for two reasons:

    • The existence of long-period comets.
    • Mathematical models that indicate the presence of matter in the outer reaches of our Suns gravitational field.

    I would point to certain post-Neptunian objects, such as Sedna, as indicators of the existence of the Oort Cloud.

    Invented by a evolutionist yes he was evolutionist and astronomer,his evolutionary worldview led him to belive in it he had faith.
    yes how you dont see it i dont know they believe its there based on there worldview not science, yes also i here there is alot of matter out there because there is matter than it must mean comets are being supplied to our solar system? how much faith do you need for your worldview



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    That was the point I was trying to make. I haven't actually seen an outlined model for creationism. Link me to the established creation model. Show me exactly how old you think the Earth is.


    I will last post or throgh pm's, unless you do want me to do it here,it will take up alot of space,as well as i would love to tell you what and why to read watch witch material etc I believe the earth is in the low thousands prably around 10,000



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    To be honest, I have barely heard of creationism and young Earth creationists, mostly because science takes precedence over religion where I am from. And, to be honest, I barely care. I have no doubts that creationism will dissipate with time.


    I like to think science takes precedence over evolutionsome dont, and notice how your worldview wont allow you to consider creation, your sure it will dissipate over time, why? evidence? no worldview I would love to debate science vs evolution as a topic title with you. Ill take the side of science you evolution.
    Science defined as testable repeatable demonstrable. Evolution is a religion opposed to science that ought to instigate you and I would love to show you.
    Not to mention there are more creationist know than ever the numbers are increasing rapidly,and more reject evolution even if not creationist than ever




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    See, this is the largest issue I have with this debate. You don't seem to be debating at all, you seem to be posting and reposting creationist articles. You are functioning as a walking advertisement for creationism rather than as a proponent of it, as I see it.


    Somewhat true for sure,however I give online references articles so you can read and reply,Should I send you books? Not sure what you want me to do, The objections you bring up are under the objections on the articles why not post them? If you think they fail challenge me on them i thoght that is what we have been doing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Im looking at this more of a discussion than debate, so please dont think this was meant as a argument in anyway, I was letting you know maybe its worth looking into as thousands of phd scientist support and believe in yec no other model than evolution has this kind of support for origins related models.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth/

    Go to "Influx of aluminum to the ocean via rivers" on the graph.

    Yeah, according do that graph, the "indicated age of the Earth" is 100 years.


    That is extremely selective out of context no? you said they believed the earth to be 100 years old, the article was just saying that you can get varied dates for the age of the ocean based on Unitarianism dating methods, witch are the assumptions evolutionist use to "prove" the earth is billions of years old showing the assumptions false and contradictory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    There's no proof? The Neolithic Revolution is nearly universally accepted within the archaeological and paleontological communities, and I haven't as of yet heard a single legitimate counter-claim...

    I would love to go over this in detail I cant belive you dont see the assumptions and how this is not observed but simply the worldview scenario, and there are many archeologist and anthropologists who reject this story telling as I see it. Know what about this article specifically do you see as evidence against what I have said? That you have never herd of creation does not surprise me you have not herd a response to this.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    You seem to be rather disdainful of early farmers. Are you aware of the fact that most grain crops (our agricultural staple, even today) took thousands of years to cultivate intho their current states? Some of the plants that early farmers cultivated weren't even originally edible. Take corn for example, which was originally a species of grass. It wasn't a simple matter of "figuring out that seeds from plants created new ones - as you said early man was intelligent and he undoubtedly knew this. The problem was transitioning between hunting for food that was necessary for the survival of a tribe (which took precedence over dicking off with seeds, no doubt) and becoming entirely dependant on agriculture.


    do you have references for any of this? very interesting, are you sugesting we did not have anything to eat for these long periods non meat? no dout we have changed and altered the food we eat today over time, its know very deficient in nutrients etc. and there was enogh food producing items back than,when have we changed a grass into corn? is that true? reference.





    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post

    ...No. The Agricultural Revolution took place anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 BC depending on the region, possibly earlier still (thanks to recent finds, such as Gobekli Tepe). The bible places the creation of the world sometime around 4,000 BC. That's not "right around the time man appeared in the bible", according to biblical chronology the Agricultural Revolution happened 6,000 years prior to the creation of the world (which is a huge amount of time for people who think the world is only 6,000 years old).


    I was refereeing to population growth, not evolutionary assumptions and dating methods, todays population growth and recorded histories matches as if it all started around the time of noahs ark around 4,500 years ago, also if you could prove that anything was around in 10,000 b.c I will coincide defet and you win debate. [Please wait for after this to present evidence] or it will get messy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I'm getting rather tired of this "global flood" claim as well. How exactly is it even possible for all the land masses on Earth to be simultaneously submerged?

    Very easily I have answered this a few times on these forums and this would be a great question on a debate on a global flood.
    A fact to consider there is enogh water in the oceans to cover the earth entirely in water a few miles deep



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Look. You believe that biblical figures (Noah, Jonah, Moses, etc) existed, yes? Then where are they buried? The answer applies to our own topic: ancient human remains and gravesites deteriorate, and are buried beneath thousands of years worth of soil and debris over time.

    We actually know were some of the figures of genesis are buried, but the "primitive" men you refer to in numbers dont need name tags they just need to be there. You by no means need all of them.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I still don't understand what you are getting at here, I'm afraid.
    not sure how your not getting it, read number 7 on my first post, it tells how much salt is being both put in and taken out of the ocean, and how the total salt is increasing, so your response ignores that making me believe you could not possible have read it before looking for a response



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    There is just one (major) problem with your theory. "Decay labs" (whatever that is supposed to mean) haven't been studying biological remains for 70 million years. Everything we know about said remains is generated from the remains themselves. If this discovery does alter our understanding of the mineralization of organisms, then paleontology will respond. This will not, however, invalidate the established age of the Earth.

    It will invalidate the evolutionary theory to a skeptical thinker, a ovius [major] problem to the claim of millions of years.So your saying than that certain and there are many biological remain degraded slower in the past? any evidence for that? better than when kept frozen ever? evidence? no faith, see how your worldview rejects ovius evidence and conclusions and retreats to a faith based position? evidence against billions of years, but your worldview will not allow that conclusion interesting no? see what i mean by no no bias people our worldviews effect everything. This is like me saying well there must have been some unobserved process way out in space that caused the decay rates of isotopes to increase and to decay to were they are today, you would rightly ask for evidence of this and say it was just believed and not observed not part of science. So is evolutionary old ages believed not science.

    Also paleontology is not a person that is able to respond so im not sure who this paleontology is that will respond. There are many that reject evolution on fossils alone.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Not really. I generally watch things that are enlightening and/or entertaining.

    So you have never seen a debate because its not enlightening or entertaining? how would you know i must ask? as you have never seen one also i find them to be both. i thought we both liked debates no?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Like I said, if (and take note of the fact that I am using the word if here) this does pan out, it will change the way we look at fossils, by showing paleontologists that such biological material doesn't always deteriorate after millions of years, depending on the condition. That being said, many notable paleontologists question Ms. Schweitzer's findings. Some believe that due to the presence of peptides, that the samples were contaminated, and that proper testing was not conducted on the findings.



    First that is no answer, that is hoping wishing they dont degrade somehow someway far away and long ago, not evidence just blind faith,again read what I said on worldviews the evidence does not convince people the world is old the worldview does and than interprets everything in light of that "fact".


    Also she and her team have answered all the objections and showed with further discovery that they are legit and original to the organism's as know many more have been found by her and others 40 at least.



    Also in her peer review process, one of the reviewers that was claiming contamination,after she showed it was not asked him what more evidence he needed to see to believe the findings he said none there was no evidence. See how his worldview effects his conclusions and the way he looked at evidence clear evidence but because he believed millions of years he could not accept the evidence.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    As I said previously, polystrate fossils can be seen as an extension of the stratum from which they originated.

    so exspalin this to me please, it was covered quickly and fossilized corect? than was sticking up in the air untill layers above came down on it millions of years later? I see a major problem with this if this is what your saying.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I didn't mean to ignore this section of your post. I think I began commenting before you finished editing.

    Regarding the "bent rocks" and "no erosion": I'm not sure I understand what you mean, nor what you think these phenomenon indicate and why.

    As far as the "flat gaps": they are created in various ways. Some are created in environments that are unsuitable for the creation of stratum. Some are created because of layers that erode more readily than the layers around it. Some (the Grand Canyon is an excellent example of this), are created by thrust faulting.

    You gave no answer as I can see above, flat gaps are common and you cannot avoid deposition or erosion for millions of years you cant leave no evidence for millions of years, thrust faulting leaves evidence for bent rocks and has nothing to do with flat gaps.


    bent rocks I said
    bent rocks without evidence of deforming showing they formed all while wet and at same time, suppose to have been laid down over millions of years.

    they would not remain wet and bendable for millions of years.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Again, link me the actual formula (with subduction included).

    sorry I thought I did my bad


    sediments are being eroded from the continents by a average of 24 billion tons a low estimate.
    It is estimated that the ocean floor has a average depth of less than 400 meters.

    WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940


    There is only one know way to remove sediments from the ocean floor by subduction, it is estimated that about 1 billion tons per year of sediments are subducted.


    WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940


    The other 23 tons accumulate at the ocean bottom, at that rate the sediments would have accumulated in just about 12 million years. According to evolution these processes have been acuring for 3 billion years.



    I was just mentioning he was member of rate group
    http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv


    not as I am right because of this,just saying they will know about the c14 in diamonds if you have any more questions.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I have no clue how this relates to the topic at hand (it seems like more rampant hatred of anything scientific), but I'll bite.

    you claimed this as trying to exspalin recession of moon. This has nothing to do with science but evolutionary theory or magic if you will hopeful unobserved thinking and believing.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Which computer models are those? Source?
    waiting for reply from same will edit when I get, but just show support for your theory in the mean time that this did happen instead of me proving the negative witch i will when email back.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Large, terrestrial protoplanets are theorized to be very common during the creation of a solar system. Much of our asteroid belt and many of our terrestrial moons are theorized to have been the result of the interaction between early protoplanets. We can actually see this dynamic in planetary nebula, during the formation of stars. Small, densely packed, young stars collide and form larger stars. This interaction is also theorized to take place with galaxies. As to the proto-planet in question - Theia - the chances of it hitting us were actually quite large due to the gravitational interaction between it, the Earth, and the Sun, and because it was on a near identical orbit with the Earth.

    The moon is nearly identical in composition to the Earth, and it doesn't have running water because it doesn't have a strong atmosphere or gravitational field, and because it's surface is directly exposed to meteors/cosmic radiation.

    alot to reply to here, Ill retype what you responded to


    moon rock composition is much different from earths no iron no water a earth moving away or broken away would have to pass the break up limit were the rocks would be torn apart

    notice you did not reply to what was said, you gave me some theories and claimed that we observe this happen so ill ask for references on that. As none has ever seen a star form or a galaxies not to mention star formation is riddled with problems.


    We don’t understand how a single starforms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.[171]


    Wecannot even show convincingly how galaxies,stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.[172]



    "galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form. It's really an embarrassment."
    Thomas, V. and R. Webb. 2011. Slim and beautiful: Galaxies too good to be true. New Scientist. 2816: 32-35.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    The Earth was able to withstand the impact with Theia because it wasn't fully cooled - it was made of liquid rock at the time.

    Anything of this size hitting the earth would most likely destroy it. And most importantly there is no evidence of such a collision to begin with because such a hit would affect both the orbits of the moon and earth.

    And here is why you know this explanation is ad-hoc. The earth has heavy metals in its crust where the moon does not. What mechanism do the evos have that would separate the heavy metals from such a collision to make sure the earth would only have these metals and the moon would not??? Any type of collision even with a molten earth, especially with a molten earth and there would be this mixing of metals, but alas the moon does not have these.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I will address this in your spoilers.
    Who knows what the orbit of the Earth was like prior to a theorized collision? How do we know its orbit was nearly circular at the time?
    problem with first statement is that it was from astronomer evolution is anyone who tries to exspalin the created world with naturalistic materialistic assumptions. Also he never mentioned creation at all,just the evolutionist theories and how they come and go, you hold out faith one day maybe just one day well find that atheistic explanation that makes sense


    Not a self correcting nature of science that is a creationist best friend, it shows when people makes claims like the earth was hit my a mars size object, the moon was formed from this and ejected out past the brake up limit etc we can eventually use that self correcting nature in science to disprove those beliefs. remember what I said science vs evolution. Also you did not answer the lunar resesion as a old earth believer, as this does not answer the problem still of a maximum age of earth moon system witch is still to young


    according to national geographic
    By measuring the ages of lunar rocks, we know that the moon is about 4.6 billion years old, or about the same age as Earth.



    so this does not even dress the issue even if you were correct




    this video goes through the history of the origin of moon theories of the evolutionist and earth moon system age of etc. free online

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...r-created-moon
    Last edited by total relism; September 26, 2011 at 03:41 PM.


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









  10. #10
    Ancient Aliens's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Incagualchepec, Guatemala
    Posts
    3,215

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    The posts in this debate have gotten so extensive (the text alone, sans spoilers, is about 18 pages long in MS Word) that, for the sake of those trying to follow this, I am going to use spoiler tags to address your previous arguments for a “young Earth”, and I will address overarching points of contention and arguments for an “old Earth” outside of the spoiler tags.

    Before I disassemble your post, however, I want to make two things clear.

    Firstly, when I stated that I would refrain from using Wikipedia articles, and that in return, you should do the same with creationist articles, I guess I wasn't entirely clear. Let me just pose an ultimatum to you here and now: stop using creationist articles and sourcing creationist websites, or I will accept further use as a concession and we will end the debate prematurely. When I originally presented the rules of the debate to you, you agreed to not copy and paste. When I said this, I wasn’t saying that you should literally refrain from using the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V function on your computer; I meant that your words and positions should be uniquely yours. If you cannot adhere to the rules of the debate, then you forfeit the debate. Take note of how I am not pasting articles from “evolutionist” sites, nor from Wikipedia. I ask that you do the same.


    Secondly, many of your arguments in this post hinge on evolution being a “worldview”, a “religion”, and/or “based on faith”. I want to nip that in the bud before we get started. The theory of evolution is a culmination of hundreds of years worth of study and debate; it is not a worldview. When someone uses the theory of evolution as a foundation for their theories and/or positions, it is empirical, as there is evidence that suggests that the theory of evolution is grounded in fact. On the other hand, creationism isn’t based on empirical evidence, it is entirely centered on validating the bible, and those who propagate it are biased.

    If actual evidence came to light that severely undermined the theory of evolution, science would undoubtedly respond. The “evidence” posed by creationists, however, stem from a gross misunderstanding of basic scientific principles and theories, and from a misunderstanding of science itself. Many of the “arguments” that you are posing stem from ignorance (such as creationists genuine ignorance of the Rock Cycle), and many are questions that science has yet to respond to (such as limited tissue samples found on fossils). So please, don’t assume that I am going to allow you to besmirch the legacy of all the millions of men and women who have dedicated their lives towards a better understanding of natural history, by allowing you to reduce the theory of evolution to a “worldview”.


    Regarding the points in the spoilers below, you can choose to address them or not at your discretion. To those who want to skip past this crap, just read my unspoilered counter-points below. On with the show:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    Sorry for so long, and I will need to edit two responses soon or ill just put them in next one, sorry for long delay as well.
    No worries, we both said that responses might take awhile, so don’t sweat it!


    sorry to hear about your logout,that use to happen to me all the time Also you seem more than any evolutionist I have met here as someone after truth, witch makes me very excited about giving you refrences to creation material that you may look at them and consider were the truth lies, you may if you do look into it later, still decide evolution is true, but at least I fully believe you will give it a fair deal.
    Here’s the thing about me (and I think this is true of most of the people who disagree with you, although I can’t necessarily speak for them all). I am not an atheist or an “evolutionist” because I believe or have faith in anything. Much to the contrary, I am a skeptic at heart (as all people of scientific inclination should be), and the reason why I don’t accept any other model but evolution or believe in a deity is because there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that I should do otherwise. If definitive evidence presented itself, then I would be open to the possibility. Here is the thing about creationism, though, that perturbs me in particular: it has an agenda. This is why people of scientific inclination fiercely oppose it. It's the same for anything of political or religious nature that arbitrarily rebukes thousands of established scientific facts to advance an agenda.


    I also enjoy debating many topic's as well, and watching debates both are fun. About bias sources You seem to know some of logic and logical fallacies etc have you learned of worldviews? It is extremely important to learn about and helps understand much in a debate of this nature. There is no such thing as a unbiased site place or person article etc. everyone is bias it is impossible not to be, because our worldview will always effect the way we see the world and the conclusions we draw from facts and observations. Evolutionist are bias creationist are bias, so I dont mind at all you using a bias site or reference because that is all there is I wont to see what the other side has to offer etc. Ill give a example this is copy paste from a previous debate i did as this always comes up.
    That’s true, but those involved in the topic will always be more biased than third party commentators. Thusly, if you want to present something, you need to outline it on your own and find a source that validates specific points within your outline.


    It is important to talk on the effects of our worldviews have on this debate. Everyone has a worldview and bias,its our basic beliefs and understanding of the universe.

    When i observe a magician cut a person in half, i conclude it was a trick, that no one was really cut in half regardless of what i thought i saw.
    I draw the conclusion not because of the evidence but because my world view prevents me from drawing the wrong conclusion. If your neighbor says he saw a ufo last night your worldview will immediately kick in and help you process and interpret the evidence, as your neighbor provides more details you will begin to form hypothesis based on your worldview. Maybe she saw a spaceship top secret government aircraft, maybe she was drinking again, maybe it was just venus [because i do not believe in ufos].
    If you do believe in ufos and aliens than you will see this as more evidence to back up your belief.
    I think you misunderstand what a worldview is. Looking at a subject from a religious or a political perspective is a worldview. Testing a hypothesis is part of the scientific method.


    This is why creation scientist and evolutionary scientist can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusion, for example there are trillions of dead plant and animals laid down by water fossilized all over the earth that is a fact.

    Know based on the belief system of the researcher one says look it must have taken billions of years to create all these fossils, Unitarianism, slowly over millions of years.
    One animal fall in a lake and was buried and fossilized than later another was caught in a local flood than another by a surging river etc evidence for billions of years it had to take that long to create all these fossils what more evidence do you need for millions of years.
    Than another researcher says wow look trillions of fossils rapidly laid down by water all over the earth, just what you would expect from a global flood, what more evidence do you need creation is true.
    The evidence is the same the conclusion is different Based on their worldview.
    Why does the other researcher base his theories on the presupposition that there was a global flood whereas the other bases his theories on preconcluded scientific fact? Because one is biased, and one is not. True scientists do not assume anything.


    I also want to define science, science is things we can test, observe, and demonstrate, and knowledge gained from this. religion is beliefs about the cause concern purpose of the universe.
    No, religion is the belief and worship of a supernatural entity.


    Both creation and evolution are religions based on our worldview, we cannot test a monkey evolving into man or complex structures evolving or the big bang or origin of life fish turning into amphibians.
    Sure we can, we see examples of evolution in the present. The most easily recognizable of these examples is, of course, the evolution of microbial and bacterial life, which causes sicknesses to mutate, reinfect previously infected individuals, and resist outdated antibiotics.


    Nor can we test noahs flood god creating etc. These are both religious worldviews, and this is not science vs religion its religion vs religion. One is based on the belief that this world created itself, mother nature created us no outside intelligence was needed only the laws that govern the universe, it created itself.
    The other is outside intelligence was needed to create the world, both are not scientific beliefs but religious worldviews.
    Firstly, no. We just went over this.

    Secondly, the only thing that scientists agree on regarding the origins of existence is that they don’t know. Science isn’t meant to give answers, it’s meant to deduce facts that provide us with the means to give answers.

    As an aside, I’m not so sure that the universe spontaneously created itself. According to string theory, there is a possibility of multiple universes. Perhaps existence always was, or perhaps it is cyclical. Why exactly does it have to have a starting point?


    I remember debating with Muslims over is islam is a religion of peace, and a athist said dont listen to the muslims there bias for islam and will try to present it as peaceful and that i should listen to a atheist. to witch I said no I want to here the best islam has to offer the best arguments so I go to Muslims not some atheist who already rejects Allah and the koran as the word of god, I never understand when people say not to listen to bias places as all are and why not? creationist will point out lies evolutionist teach and problems with evolution you would probably otherwise never here. Same with evolutionist will show problems and chalenges to creation why not here both sides I cant understand that. Let both make the best case they can.
    Regarding the formation of personal opinions and beliefs: yes. You should attempt to gain as much insight on a topic from as many sources, biased or not, as possible. When you are debating, however, and you are trying to prove a point, your sources need to be neutral. If I was to post an article from yahwehisahomicidaldouchebag.com, you would laugh it off, and rightfully so: the source is highly biased.


    evolutionist are very bias
    You are going to need to stop saying evolutionists, it’s rather silly. Why not say “anti-creationists” instead? Many people disagree with creationism and question evolution (people who believe in intelligent design). And not all disagreements with creationism stem from the theory of evolution and natural selection; many of my own points of contention stem from my limited knowledge of astrophysics, for example.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Even if all of the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
    Todd, S. C. 1999. A view from Kansas on that evolution debate. Nature. 401 (6752): 423.


    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a prioriadherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute,for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.


    Reference
    Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.


    “evolutionist reject as a matter of printable not because of evidence “
    F.M harold 2001 the way of the cell molecules organisms and the order of life oxford university press new york new york

    'We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.
    That is quite the strawman. Human beings are not gods, nor do we establish any rules. We are merely observers, recording the world around us.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    “Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
    Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011 Harvard grad
    Did you really just quote someone whos only claim to fame is that he graduated from Harvard, do you expect me to give a about anything that he stated?


    creationist started science all major branches of science, deal with what is being said not who it comes from, they do that in a attempt to dismiss the evidence to attack the source.
    What the ? Creationists didn’t start any major branches of science.

    If they have no regards for where information originated, then they are unscientific, idiotic, and just plain wrong. If I told you that a drug dealer theorized that cocaine is good for ones metabolism, what would be your largest point of contention? That’s right, the fact that a drug dealer postulated it; the fact that he has a vested interest in promoting his theory (he attributes beneficial health effects with cocaine, and he gets to sell more cocaine). The same is true of religious people advancing creationist ideas (by validating the bible, the beliefs that they hold to be true are validated).


    They cannot deal with the evidence so they attack the source, one way to tell is to watch those phd vs phd debates to see who's side holds up, the creation side is verified over and over again. Also read the bios of the creationist they publish in secular journals all the time some have hundreds of published works.
    I’m not attacking your sources, I’m asking you to verify your points with neutral sources. All creationists attempt to verify their sources with published, neutral findings (such as findings reported by the paleontologist who found the tissue samples).


    Also when I get something from a evolutionist source I dont cover my ears and say no get that away from me my high priest wont let me read it, I say I would love to hear it your opinion and conclusion of the evidence.
    Most all creation material originates in secular journals, creationist also publish in evolutionary journals all the time.
    It is unscientific to not consider a possibility because of your religious beliefs they are exposing there bias not even considering another option to their atheistic materialistic belief system.
    They want you to leave education and hearing all views and join in there indoctrination so you believe as they do.
    Evolutionist want you to believe you appendix is useless that you have gills like a fish, that a loss is a gain, a tooth of a pig is missing link between man and monkey among many other lies and distortions of evidence.
    Excuse me while I laugh at the “atheistic religion” comment. That is the most oxymoronic thing I have ever heard in my entire life. You don’t even appreciate the irony, do you?

    Why are those lies, by the way? Can you disprove them? And yes, this is referring to vestigial organs, though I have never heard of primates being related to pigs. I’m fairly sure that it basically went like this: squirrels -> tree monkeys -> apes -> humans.


    Thanks I actually do have it but it only will stay with one misspelled at a time, so while im typing like I gota run and take a dum% I will not look up to see earlier misspelled words because I type so many, real life im relly not like this....I'm much worse
    You can spellcheck your entire text after you finish your article in its entirety. That’s what I used to do before I committed a majority of the dictionary to memory.

    I believe you can get info from evolutionary references if you prefer
    Why would I want you to get info from yet another biased source? If you are unable to validate your arguments using neutral sources, then you have no argument at all.


    I am awaiting response on a email [from a rate group member]and will edit when i can post probably today,this still would not exspalin it as you need to show evidence for it.
    In your last post, you falsely accused me of asking you to prove the negative. In this post, you are actually asking me to prove the negative (apparently, you want me to prove that your claim is false before you are going to provide evidence for it?); the irony. The onus is on you to verify your claims. You can’t go around pulling claims from the nether reaches and not expect me to call you out on it – this is a debate.


    Again you have to show that they have been not the other way around,first that it is possible than that they have been
    Holy . You actually responded to my post about proving the negative by asking me to prove the negative. Are you trolling me? Seriously? Again, the onus is on you to verify your claims.

    But c14 will decay,c14 will not last forever it will always decay and in objects millions or billions of years old if true would not be found, yes c14 always is being added, but not to these objects deep in geolgical time you seem knowledgeable you should know that correct,unless im missing something your saying let me know.
    So that is what you are referring to, now I understand. The very reason why radiocarbon dating is used up to ~20,000 years is because objects older than 20,000 years give false-positives and poor readings. This is because of beta decay. 20,000 year + objects emit so little radiation from C14 that measurements of the radiation generated by their C14 decay are drowned out by background radiation. Does that make sense? If it came out convoluted, let me know.


    Show me a evolutionary model that has evidence to support it? the evidence suports the constant overall decay oviusly of the creation model, not to mention the creation model has sucsefully predicted something like 7 planets and 2 moons acuralty the strength of there magnetic feilds while the evolutnary model has been was off.
    You are dodging. Show me your supposedly accurate formula that incorporates polarity shifts and shows that the maximum age of the Earth is 90 million years.


    all references within that you will need.

    http://creation.com/the-earths-magne...th-is-young#f8

    another good reference would be
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...the-universe-2

    look under
    Getting Around the Magnetic Field Evidence and

    Magnetic Dynamo Versus Magnetic Decay
    …More creationist articles, I feel like I’m debating with a broken record.


    you did not answer what i said that erosion is greater,but yes they measure basins that is total amount of erosion [done 12 times by evolutionist to get numbers] of all landscape, so they are not selecting data, the evolutionist recognize this as a problem as well, and what i did not say was taking the lowest possible numbers of erosion of any surface of 1mm per thousand years would give a maximum age of 623 million years, however this is not realistic as it takes lowest erosion found anywhere and applies to all earths surface, not to mention things like catastrophic erosion from hurricanes floods etc when rates are increased by Hugh amounts, and mountain areas such as himalayas appalachians, and the caledonides have rates of 1,000mm
    H.W Menard 1961 some rates of erosion journal of geology 69 154-161
    No, it does not take one of the slowest erosion rates on Earth and apply it everywhere. It does the exact opposite, which is what I stated in the post you were commenting on. Basins and outcrops are the quickest geological formations to erode – their shape and composition make them flatten rather quickly (upon which the erosion rates are slowed dramatically; even your articles source acknowledges this, though your source obviously ignored it). This is basic physics. The study also took a mean of several areas. This does not account for geological changes (such as the area becoming emerged in water), or changes in weather patterns. Needless to say, nowhere does your source mention subduction or continental uplift, so it is failing to take into account the basics of the rock cycle.


    Let me provide you with an example of why these static calculations and calculations on mean rates are ridiculous. I notice that it snowed half an inch each day last week, and that the Sun only melted a quarter of an inch each day. Let’s calculate this:

    5.45 billion years x 365 days x .25 inches of snow a day = 41,427,500,000,000 inches of snow.

    Why isn’t the world buried in 41,427,500,000,000 inches of snow?!?

    Do you see what I’m talking about? My “calculation” doesn’t take into account a single variable; the snow falls at varying rates, the suns radiance varies with the weather and with solar activity, there hasn’t been snow since day one of Earth’s creation, it won’t always snow, it snows at varying rates, years weren’t always 365 days, etc, etc, etc. In much the same way, your creatio0nist articles do not take the variables into account; they are static formulae that are calculating their figures using means and averages. In effect, this is the suppressing evidence.

    Do you see why I take issue with static formulae now?


    alot more than norm so im not sure what your saying about mountains. Also you ignore what i said the layers would have been replaced over and over by newer rock and the top layers eroded away.
    Again, subduction and continental uplift, which your source fails to acknowledge. I saw what you did previously: you linked me one article about continental erosion, and then you pulled another article that mentioned subduction from another site. I’m onto you.


    Let me tell you of erosion, water falls caries sediments to the ocean via rivers it is measured and the total height of continents is reduced, give it enough time all will erode to the sea, give it the age evolutionist claim big problem.
    If “all will erode to the sea”, then we would see evidence of this. We don’t. All we have is a few unrelated averages.


    not at all you can use any source you wish, i was just pointing out the contradiction or self refuting nature of your statement, as for biases I replyed at beginning of post.
    Do you feel that you are incapable of continuing the debate without sourcing creationist sites?


    neither,evolution is a belief system a worldview,that the world we live in created itself [read my worldviews bias response] "evolution" the model on origins is just the result of the worldview. That all life created itself from nothing no creator materialistic naturalistic starting assumptions, than go and try to exspalin the world around us with those beliefs, If the world was not created than evolution and big bang etc is the only other way its one or the other.
    You are rehashing your previous comments, which I already addressed.


    It is not based on science but worldviews, were talking here of a great exsaple the oart cloud, you claim its a "scientific" study or theory,yet there is nothing scientific about it, it is not observed never has been, it is only believed to be there based on naturalistic materialistic assumptions that the world is billions of years old, so there must be some kind of "oart cloud" supplying new comets, and anyone who does not have faith in the oart cloud [creationist] are called unscientific and bible thumpers . I very much enjoy debating with you and would love to offer if you are willing a 1v1 creation vs evolution, with break in between. I feel it would be very productive for both.
    I just talked about the Oort Cloud, let’s see how you addressed that portion.

    Invented by a evolutionist yes he was evolutionist and astronomer,his evolutionary worldview led him to belive in it he had faith.
    yes how you dont see it i dont know they believe its there based on there worldview not science, yes also i here there is alot of matter out there because there is matter than it must mean comets are being supplied to our solar system? how much faith do you need for your worldview
    You didn’t address my points, either about Sedna, or about mathematical models that project the existence of matter on the edge of Earth’s gravitational field. Instead you (poorly) attack the creator of the theory. If this debate is just a means to advertise creationism, or if it is just a way to irritate/troll me, then let’s stop.


    I will last post or throgh pm's, unless you do want me to do it here,it will take up alot of space,as well as i would love to tell you what and why to read watch witch material etc I believe the earth is in the low thousands prably around 10,000
    Link me a site that points to a proposed creationist model, no need to splay it all over this already saturated debate.

    I like to think science takes precedence over evolution some dont, and notice how your worldview wont allow you to consider creation, your sure it will dissipate over time, why? evidence? no worldview I would love to debate science vs evolution as a topic title with you. Ill take the side of science you evolution.
    Science defined as testable repeatable demonstrable. Evolution is a religion opposed to science that ought to instigate you and I would love to show you.
    Not to mention there are more creationist know than ever the numbers are increasing rapidly,and more reject evolution even if not creationist than ever
    I think that creationism will dissipate over time because of this. No offense. If you want me to validate that particular opinion of mine with facts, I can, but something tells me that you will decline the presentation of these facts and skip right to bombarding me with nonsensical/fallacious rage.


    Somewhat true for sure,however I give online references articles so you can read and reply,Should I send you books? Not sure what you want me to do, The objections you bring up are under the objections on the articles why not post them? If you think they fail challenge me on them i thoght that is what we have been doing?
    That’s the problem, they don’t address my posts. They are (at best) vaguely relevant. You need to be able to argue for yourself.


    Im looking at this more of a discussion than debate, so please dont think this was meant as a argument in anyway, I was letting you know maybe its worth looking into as thousands of phd scientist support and believe in yec no other model than evolution has this kind of support for origins related models.
    Thousands of “phd scientists” could say that eating broccoli could cause you to grow a third testicle, but I still wouldn’t give two .


    That is extremely selective out of context no? you said they believed the earth to be 100 years old, the article was just saying that you can get varied dates for the age of the ocean based on Unitarianism dating methods, witch are the assumptions evolutionist use to "prove" the earth is billions of years old showing the assumptions false and contradictory.
    That is not extremely out of context, it says “Maximum Age of the Earth”. If they are using those measurements to calculate the age of the Earth, then the maximum age should be 100 years, according to the statistics they were quoting. You can’t cherry pick figures; either the whole graph is incorrect, or none of it is.


    I would love to go over this in detail I cant belive you dont see the assumptions and how this is not observed but simply the worldview scenario, and there are many archeologist and anthropologists who reject this story telling as I see it. Know what about this article specifically do you see as evidence against what I have said? That you have never herd of creation does not surprise me you have not herd a response to this.
    This has nothing to do with creationism. Just because it is beyond the 10,000 year range doesn’t mean it has anything to do with the debate at hand. That’s rather paranoid; it’s like saying that paleontologists that specialize in dinosaur remains are all out to get the creationists because they don’t think that dinosaurs lived in the same timeframe as humans. Sociology and human paleontology supersedes this debate. If it doesn’t, then show me a counter theory by creationists. Unfortunately for you, you can’t, as they don’t have one in place. Their concern is undermining scientific theories that contradict the bible; I doubt they deeply care about human paleontology.


    do you have references for any of this? very interesting, are you sugesting we did not have anything to eat for these long periods non meat? no dout we have changed and altered the food we eat today over time, its know very deficient in nutrients etc. and there was enogh food producing items back than,when have we changed a grass into corn? is that true? reference.
    No, we ate meat from hunted animals prior to this. Here is an article on the cultivation of corn.


    I was refereeing to population growth, not evolutionary assumptions and dating methods, todays population growth and recorded histories matches as if it all started around the time of noahs ark around 4,500 years ago, also if you could prove that anything was around in 10,000 b.c I will coincide defet and you win debate. [Please wait for after this to present evidence] or it will get messy.
    I will provide undeniable facts that prove the universe is over 10,000 years below these spoilers. As to your “current population growth matches as if it all started around the time of Noah’s Ark around 4,500 years ago” comment, prove it! Let’s see the formula!


    Very easily I have answered this a few times on these forums and this would be a great question on a debate on a global flood.
    A fact to consider there is enogh water in the oceans to cover the earth entirely in water a few miles deep
    Then why aren’t we submerged? There isn’t even enough water to submerge the continents entirely, much less create a flood. Prior to the Oligocene Era the polar ice caps were entirely melted, and there was no global flood then. In fact, continental organisms thrived during this period, and were found deep inland.


    We actually know were some of the figures of genesis are buried, but the "primitive" men you refer to in numbers dont need name tags they just need to be there. You by no means need all of them.
    …Just as you “by no means need all” of the biblical figures to prove that they existed.


    It will invalidate the evolutionary theory to a skeptical thinker, a ovius [major] problem to the claim of millions of years.So your saying than that certain and there are many biological remain degraded slower in the past? any evidence for that? better than when kept frozen ever? evidence? no faith, see how your worldview rejects ovius evidence and conclusions and retreats to a faith based position? evidence against billions of years, but your worldview will not allow that conclusion interesting no? see what i mean by no no bias people our worldviews effect everything. This is like me saying well there must have been some unobserved process way out in space that caused the decay rates of isotopes to increase and to decay to were they are today, you would rightly ask for evidence of this and say it was just believed and not observed not part of science. So is evolutionary old ages believed not science.
    No it wouldn’t. When there is a discrepancy with a theory, it isn’t sound to immediately chuck it out the window. If we did, we would still be in the Stone Ages. There is virtually nothing in science that is without contradiction; even something as seemingly solid as the theory of gravity has issues.


    Also paleontology is not a person that is able to respond so im not sure who this paleontology is that will respond. There are many that reject evolution on fossils alone.
    The paleontological community is fairly united in the fact that the Earth is several billion years old. If it wasn’t, many of them would be out of a job.


    So you have never seen a debate because its not enlightening or entertaining? how would you know i must ask? as you have never seen one also i find them to be both. i thought we both liked debates no?
    I love debating, I don’t love watching or reading debates.


    First that is no answer, that is hoping wishing they dont degrade somehow someway far away and long ago, not evidence just blind faith,again read what I said on worldviews the evidence does not convince people the world is old the worldview does and than interprets everything in light of that "fact".
    How is that hoping or wishing? Do you propose that we don’t question paleontological findings? Some very prominent paleontologists questioned the validity of these findings, including the head editor and the head researcher of the National Geographic.


    Also she and her team have answered all the objections and showed with further discovery that they are legit and original to the organism's as know many more have been found by her and others 40 at least.
    Source?


    Also in her peer review process, one of the reviewers that was claiming contamination,after she showed it was not asked him what more evidence he needed to see to believe the findings he said none there was no evidence. See how his worldview effects his conclusions and the way he looked at evidence clear evidence but because he believed millions of years he could not accept the evidence.
    Let’s be realistic here, please. Scientists aren’t questioning scientific findings because they invalidate “evolutionism” here. Most people (including myself) don’t give a about creationism.


    so exspalin this to me please, it was covered quickly and fossilized corect? than was sticking up in the air untill layers above came down on it millions of years later? I see a major problem with this if this is what your saying.
    1. A sample petrifies.
    2. The petrified sample is buried beneath material that is softer than it (such as silt, or soil).
    3. The same amount of pressure is exerted upon the petrified sample that is upon the softer material. The softer material is compressed more than the harder petrified sample is.
    4. The strata are built around the petrified sample.

    Does this not make sense?


    You gave no answer as I can see above, flat gaps are common and you cannot avoid deposition or erosion for millions of years you cant leave no evidence for millions of years, thrust faulting leaves evidence for bent rocks and has nothing to do with flat gaps.
    Thrust faulting has plenty to do with your “flat gaps”. When one layer is placed onto another, it can cause a discrepancy in the dating of strata (obviously). Did you read my source? You ignored my other comment, by the way, that softer strata can be eroded whereas hard strata remain.


    bent rocks I said
    bent rocks without evidence of deforming showing they formed all while wet and at same time, suppose to have been laid down over millions of years.

    they would not remain wet and bendable for millions of years.
    Are you talking about rocks that slowly arc under heat and pressure, or?


    sorry I thought I did my bad
    It’s fine.


    sediments are being eroded from the continents by a average of 24 billion tons a low estimate.
    It is estimated that the ocean floor has a average depth of less than 400 meters.

    WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940


    There is only one know way to remove sediments from the ocean floor by subduction, it is estimated that about 1 billion tons per year of sediments are subducted.


    WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940


    The other 23 tons accumulate at the ocean bottom, at that rate the sediments would have accumulated in just about 12 million years. According to evolution these processes have been acuring for 3 billion years.
    That’s not a formula.

    And again, remember what I said about static formulae; remember my example about average snowfall? Same here.


    I was just mentioning he was member of rate group
    http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

    not as I am right because of this,just saying they will know about the c14 in diamonds if you have any more questions.
    1. You didn’t verify that he is who you said he is. He could be your mother for all I know.
    2. He is an “astrophysicist” (if he can even be called that). His knowledge of C14 decomposition holds as much weight as mine.
    3. You need to be answering my questions, regardless.


    you claimed this as trying to exspalin recession of moon. This has nothing to do with science but evolutionary theory or magic if you will hopeful unobserved thinking and believing.
    Theories regarding the creation of the moon predate creationism. Your paranoid, disjointed claims are disturbing.


    waiting for reply from same will edit when I get, but just show support for your theory in the mean time that this did happen instead of me proving the negative witch i will when email back.
    You claimed that there were computer models to back this point up, I am merely asking you to show them to me.


    alot to reply to here, Ill retype what you responded to
    Ok.


    moon rock composition is much different from earths no iron no water a earth moving away or broken away would have to pass the break up limit were the rocks would be torn apart

    notice you did not reply to what was said, you gave me some theories and claimed that we observe this happen so ill ask for references on that. As none has ever seen a star form or a galaxiesnot to mention star formation is riddled with problems.
    We see star formation all the time, they are called planetary nebulae:



    About the composition of Luna: there is no water in the Moons crust. There could be pockets of water deeper in it's crust or in its mantle, for all we know, but I doubt it. This doesn't however, say anything about the Moons origins, as any surface H2O would have obviously been prone the the hundreds of thousands of impacts that have happened on the lunar surface. And yes, there are ferrous compounds in lunar soil, I have no clue what you are talking about.


    “We don’t understand how a single starforms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.[171]

    “Wecannot even show convincingly how galaxies,stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.[172]

    "galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form. It's really an embarrassment."
    Thomas, V. and R. Webb. 2011. Slim and beautiful: Galaxies too good to be true. New Scientist. 2816: 32-35.
    News Flash: Scientists don’t know things and are conducting research to further understand them! Scandalous!


    Anything of this size hitting the earth would most likely destroy it. And most importantly there is no evidence of such a collision to begin with because such a hit would affect both the orbits of the moon and earth.
    Watch this.

    Masses of liquid function differently in zero gravity.


    And here is why you know this explanation is ad-hoc. The earth has heavy metals in its crust where the moon does not. What mechanism do the evos have that would separate the heavy metals from such a collision to make sure the earth would only have these metals and the moon would not??? Any type of collision even with a molten earth, especially with a molten earth and there would be this mixing of metals, but alas the moon does not have these.
    …I just showed that the moon does have metals in it’s crust.


    problem with first statement is that it was from astronomer evolution is anyone who tries to exspalin the created world with naturalistic materialistic assumptions. Also he never mentioned creation at all,just the evolutionist theories and how they come and go, you hold out faith one day maybe just one day well find that atheistic explanation that makes sense
    So…what? Second-hand comments from unreferenced, unverifiable “astronomers” take precedence over my presented evidence why? “Evolutionist” theories, by the way, come and go because that is how science works. If he was actually an astronomer he would know that.


    Not a self correcting nature of science that is a creationist best friend, it shows when people makes claims like the earth was hit my a mars size object, the moon was formed from this and ejected out past the brake up limit etc we can eventually use that self correcting nature in science to disprove those beliefs. remember what I said science vs evolution. Also you did not answer the lunar resesion as a old earth believer, as this does not answer the problem still of a maximum age of earth moon system witch is still to young
    Yes, I did answer the Earth-Moon system point. You just failed to properly respond to my post. Don’t make me retype if you can help it, this post is already 18 pages as it is.

    And you don’t seem to understand the self-correcting nature of science at all. Otherwise, you wouldn’t expect every theory to be valid if and only if they are static and indefinitely correct.


    according to national geographic
    By measuring the ages of lunar rocks, we know that the moon is about 4.6 billion years old, or about the same age as Earth.

    so this does not even dress the issue even if you were correct
    What is this even referring to? I already stated that the Moon is about the same age as the Earth. And why are you using a source that states that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, isn’t that just “evolutionary bias”?


    this video goes through the history of the origin of moon theories of the evolutionist and earth moon system age of etc. free online

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...r-created-moon
    More creationist crap. What a great way to end this section of our debate.

    You stated in this post “also if you could prove that anything was around in 10,000 b.c I will coincide defet and you win debate”, so I intend to do so. I have responding with a proper counter-opinion for a bit too long.

    Now, you seem to take issue primarily with the theory of evolution and natural selection, and in doing so you have belittled the work of millions of people, including Charles Darwin himself, so I feel that the only appropriate way to end this debate is to verify my position using evolutionary biology itself.

    The Human Genome Project, which was completed in 2003, was an endeavor undertaken by the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Institute of Health, and various independent researchers to fully map out and sequence human DNA. According to the findings of the project, 223 genomes of our 30,000 genomes are directly related to bacteria, with many more being directly related to various single-cellular organisms.

    Given the undeniable disparity between proto-organisms, single cellular organisms, bacteria, etc and human beings, and with our current temporal understanding of evolution, the evolutionary processes required to transfer these genomes to human DNA would take billions of years to unfold. This is irrefutable.


    I also want to bring to light (forgive the terrible pun) another issue that was previously mentioned by people following this debate. Light. It takes tens of thousands of years for it to traverse the distance between one end of our galaxy to the other, and billions of years for it to traverse the universe. Object UDFj-39546284 is currently the farthest observed object in our universe, at over 13.2 billion light years away, according to the NASA article I just linked (although, it is even farther according to Hubble’s Law, which puts it roughly 30 billion light years away, but that is beside the point).

    If Yahweh created the universe 10,000 years ago, then why are we seeing light from 13.2 billion years ago?
    Last edited by Ancient Aliens; September 28, 2011 at 05:42 PM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    First I wanted to post the emails I got back from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../d_deyoung.asp A rate group member


    concerning c14 in diamonds and you said this

    "Firstly, you are going to need to provide a source that proves that uranium contamination doesn't effect diamonds, or that a sample would have to be 99% uranium for it to be effected by uranium fission. Frankly, you seem to be pulling these figures out of thin air (or, as is more likely the case, your site doesn't mention or counter this, so you are floundering)."


    he replied
    "A very small fraction of decays [Ra, Th, U] produces C-14...In fact, the generation of carbon-14 by the decay of heavy nuclei results in an amount at least 100,000 times less than the actual C-14 found in samples of coal and diamond"

    and I also did provide source earlier.


    you also asked for a source on the moon models he referenced me here.



    Regarding moon origin by an earth collision, a recent problem is that the moon contains too many water molecules which would have been vaporized away. The model result where two moons form is discussed at
    Gary, Stuart (August 4, 2011). "Earth May Have Had Two Moons". DiscoveryNews. http://news.discovery.com/space/two-...th-110804.html. Retrieved 2011-08-04. This is from Wikipedia, Giant Impact Hypothesis.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    The posts in this debate have gotten so extensive (the text alone, sans spoilers, is about 18 pages long in MS Word) that, for the sake of those trying to follow this, I am going to use spoiler tags to address your previous arguments for a “young Earth”, and I will address overarching points of contention and arguments for an “old Earth” outside of the spoiler tags.
    First I thought we were going to wait untill we finished up on these that I presented first,[the young earth arguments]I feel you puting them in spoilers and referring to them as crap or the discussion we were having on them as crap, seems you are know downplaying them and act as if they dont matter, when before you said you were going to rip them apart or something similar.
    But me real belief is you are know seeing your objections were mostly answered on my first post or have nothing to do with the arguments at all [lunar resion] and cannot anwser my replies to your objections so your know downplaying them I cant so I will not keep them in spoiler so they are out in open, i hoped we could finish and focus on them before "old earth" arguments are braght up



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Before I disassemble your post, however, I want to make two things clear.

    Firstly, when I stated that I would refrain from using Wikipedia articles, and that in return, you should do the same with creationist articles, I guess I wasn't entirely clear. Let me just pose an ultimatum to you here and now: stop using creationist articles and sourcing creationist websites, or I will accept further use as a concession and we will end the debate prematurely. When I originally presented the rules of the debate to you, you agreed to not copy and paste. When I said this, I wasn’t saying that you should literally refrain from using the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V function on your computer; I meant that your words and positions should be uniquely yours. If you cannot adhere to the rules of the debate, then you forfeit the debate. Take note of how I am not pasting articles from “evolutionist” sites, nor from Wikipedia. I ask that you do the same.

    Not sure what you mean here? So i cannot use any information from a source? I have to invent it up? or just write down what it says in my own words? If I copy that means I agree with it etc


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Secondly, many of your arguments in this post hinge on evolution being a “worldview”, a “religion”, and/or “based on faith”.

    not at all I just was pointing out how the worldview effects the conclusions and the way people look at the evidence thats all, erosion rates exsitance of comets do not depend on a worldview those are facts, the belief in a oart cloud does depend on the worldview see?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I want to nip that in the bud before we get started. The theory of evolution is a culmination of hundreds of years worth of study and debate; it is not a worldview. When someone uses the theory of evolution as a foundation for their theories and/or positions, it is empirical, as there is evidence that suggests that the theory of evolution is grounded in fact. On the other hand, creationism isn’t based on empirical evidence, it is entirely centered on validating the bible, and those who propagate it are biased.

    This shows your complete lack of knowledge of worldviews first you are referring to models and how they change within the evolutionary paradigm in witch case I agree this is also the case with creation models, so I have no idea what your saying here, Saying evolution is empirical is amazingly false, your saying life arising from non life is empirical science? really? A fish evolving into a amphibian? than mammal? all these unobserved processes are actually empirical science? What fact is there for Upward complexity evolution? Debate me on this please oh please.
    If I haven't I show you a few exspales of evolutionary bias? oart cloud? decay of biological tissue? The conclusion is already draw before the evidence, than interpreted by the worldview. I like to see how you responded to what I said on worldviews, youll have to logically respond to prove that somehow evolutinst are not bias and only creationist are


    Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
    Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:



    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.



    Reference
    Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.







    At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.
    Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer. See refutation of his Washington Post article attacking creation.






    Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’
    Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.





    evolutionist reject as a matter of printable not because of evidence “
    F.M harold 2001 the way of the cell molecules organisms and the order of life oxford university press new york new york




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    If actual evidence came to light that severely undermined the theory of evolution, science would undoubtedly respond.

    notice you dont even notice but you just referd to evolution as science, and that science is some person able to respond, your logic is going downhill fast, I would love to show you the evidence and science against evolution, i have show some with the age of earth, but when you show evidence against such as comets or proteins that break down to fast to be millions of years old, there worldview respond not science maybe theres a oart cloud maybe the rates decayed slower in the past , not science buy worldview rescuing devises there called. Science does not respond evolutionary theology does




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    The “evidence” posed by creationists, however, stem from a gross misunderstanding of basic scientific principles and theories, and from a misunderstanding of science itself.
    How they got there phd's from secular university ill never know. Any examples for this?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Many of the “arguments” that you are posing stem from ignorance (such as creationists genuine ignorance of the Rock Cycle), and many are questions that science has yet to respond to (such as limited tissue samples found on fossils).
    lol, instead of blaming creationist for using problems that evolutionist own sources point out and not understanding some things happen at a greater rate than others and that outweighs the other by a measurable amount. Maybe you should just maybe consider you might be wrong?

    “ if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
    C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668

    J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264



    S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155


    So either the evolutionist who did the study's 12 overall, the ones who wrote the articles and there peer reviewers in the journals ,the phd creationist in geology, the debaters for the evolutionist side in the debates i have watched and the study's that show reduction of all continents are wrong, or your wrong no offence but maybe your not grasping it enough, notice how you never even offer amount of new rock being created your way on the surface, got a reference? maybe its all a conspiracy led on by the creationist hhhhmmm thats right a big conspiracy you cant listen to them there bias..


    lol and notice again you keep referring to this "science" guy who is he that he will respond? there is no such person, what your worldview is making you believe with no evidence to suport is that you belive one of athism high preist with a degree in scince will cure your problem, I have no such faith.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    So please, don’t assume that I am going to allow you to besmirch the legacy of all the millions of men and women who have dedicated their lives towards a better understanding of natural history, by allowing you to reduce the theory of evolution to a “worldview”.

    First were is these millions of people? I love science and people who study it, science was started by Christians So you misunderstand what i think, i love science and further discovery thats how I can show all evolutionist evidence wrong science will show it to be.
    Also why would you care if i besmirch anyways? nice word, after all im just evolved pond scum and so are the "millions" of people you refer to, why do you care what some evolved slime from a rock does anyways? or what I do to some other evolved slime?


    your statement is inconsistent with your worldview.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
    Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
    I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
    As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.



    also creation can make sense of science evolution cannot


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    If evolution were true than science would not make sense.
    Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought,thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science
    Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage,They say we are the result of hydrogen gas,than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations.
    So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident our brain to understand another accident the world?
    Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught me a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth.
    We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly, how do we know our eyes ears brain memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know, we could be in some matrix world.
    Or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]
    Science would be impossible unless our memories was giving accurate info and our senses our eyes ears etc also laws of logic are needed. How does matter produce a organism with memory?
    regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions astronomy depends on this almost entirely.
    The universe is understandable we assume the universe is logical orderly and it obeys mathematical laws that is how we can make predictions.
    Freedom to chose and consider various options free will.
    In fact evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them.
    The only reason i believe in creation is because the chemicals in my brain make me.


    science need us to be able to know our seances are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality?
    evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.






    But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature i would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible, so were able to repeatable lab experiments etc.
    That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ear,s are accurately giving us the correct information information to be able to do science in the first place etc
    Why should i believe that one accident our brains can properly understand another accident the big bang? how can matter acted on by mutation only for a survival advantage produce laws of logic? this is illogical matter cannot do this matter cannot produce nonmaterial things this is against science and against logic.
    If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Regarding the points in the spoilers below, you can choose to address them or not at your discretion. To those who want to skip past this crap, just read my unspoilered counter-points below. On with the show:
    I will unspoiler as they are very important to our debate.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Here’s the thing about me (and I think this is true of most of the people who disagree with you, although I can’t necessarily speak for them all). I am not an atheist or an “evolutionist” because I believe or have faith in anything. Much to the contrary, I am a skeptic at heart (as all people of scientific inclination should be), and the reason why I don’t accept any other model but evolution or believe in a deity is because there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that I should do otherwise. If definitive evidence presented itself, then I would be open to the possibility. Here is the thing about creationism, though, that perturbs me in particular: it has an agenda. This is why people of scientific inclination fiercely oppose it. It's the same for anything of political or religious nature that arbitrarily rebukes thousands of established scientific facts to advance an agenda.

    Except evolution has a agenda, do you belive life arose with no creator? were is your evidence? fish evolved into amphibian? were is your evidence all life evolved from a common ancestor were is the evidence? We really need to debate ill point out how much faith you have in the unobserved, such as decay rates of protein in fossil must have decayed at different rate damn the scientific evidence. I also dout 100% you have been skeptical of evolution otherwise how could you still belive it? I would love to here your answers to why you still belive in a debate when i bring up the problems with it. Since your skeptical of it than you must have good reasons and awsers. Also evidence for creation Im not sure what more evidence you would want? I would love to show you at least in material and debates.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    That’s true, but those involved in the topic will always be more biased than third party commentators. Thusly, if you want to present something, you need to outline it on your own and find a source that validates specific points within your outline.

    Creationist using data from evolutionist is using a non "bias" third party,as they are just collecting data not using as evidence for young earth. That is were all this stuff originates from secular journals except 1 I think, witch was published in secular journals by creationist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I think you misunderstand what a worldview is. Looking at a subject from a religious or a political perspective is a worldview. Testing a hypothesis is part of the scientific method.
    Yes I agree the testing is, the conclusion is not,that is what your not getting,as I said before the oart cloud is based on a certain worldview not evidence know whos worldview believes it?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Why does the other researcher base his theories on the presupposition that there was a global flood whereas the other bases his theories on preconcluded scientific fact? Because one is biased, and one is not. True scientists do not assume anything.
    Lol what is scientific fact? The only fact is billions of dead animals all over the world, either got here by slow gradual process [millions of years evolution] or a global flood, both can exspalin the evidence [i think flood way better] what do you believe is based on worldview, the other bases his presupistions on slow gradual processe over millions of years uniformtarism. If your truly blinded to tyhe ovius and cant see this im not sure how else I can exspalin to you.




    the idea of a coolly rational scientific observer, completely independent free of all preconceived theories prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments doing investigations and coming to dispassionate unbias conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science and indeed most scientist as a simplistic myth”
    professor john lennox, fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university








    The stereotype of a rational and objective scientific method and individual scientist as logical and interchangeable robots is self-serving mythology”
    evolutionist stepehn j gould in the mind of the beholder natural history 103 feb 1994




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    No, religion is the belief and worship of a supernatural entity.



    "Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life."—*American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.


    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
    Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.




    All of the atheists I know are highly religious; it just doesn’t mean believing in the Bible or God. Religion is the basic belief system of the person. Mankind wants the answers to all unanswerable questions.’

    Ernst Mayr, once called ‘the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist




    "Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."—
    *M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 49.




    american courts have reorganized atheism as a religion and it is, it effects the way you observe and think of the world based on its origins.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Sure we can, we see examples of evolution in the present. The most easily recognizable of these examples is, of course, the evolution of microbial and bacterial life, which causes sicknesses to mutate, reinfect previously infected individuals, and resist outdated antibiotics.

    Hmm this is not the kind of evolution im referring to,also as I said we cant observe these things like a monkey like animal evolving into man etc. big bang origin of life etc.


    <img alt=""><img alt=""><img alt=""><img alt="">
    Also no bacteria resistance is evidence for upward complexity evolution that could evolve all life from a single ancestor. one exsaple commonly given is

    Antibiotic-resistant H. pylori have a mutation that results in the loss of information to produce an enzyme. This enzyme normally converts an antibiotic to a poison, which causes death. But when the antibiotics are applied to the mutant H. pylori, these bacteria can live while the normal bacteria are killed. So by natural selection the ones that lost information survive and pass this trait along to their offspring.

    this is caused by a loss of information ill give you material on this and more if you want, debates this always is braght up I recommend them



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Firstly, no. We just went over this.

    Secondly, the only thing that scientists agree on regarding the origins of existence is that they don’t know. Science isn’t meant to give answers, it’s meant to deduce facts that provide us with the means to give answers.

    thank god I found this science guy, I thought this guy could respond? you said he could talk, also you do not realize it but your admitting that conclusion drawn by both creationist and evolutionist is based not on scince but worldview, Im kepping this one when you try to deny effects of worldviews.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    As an aside, I’m not so sure that the universe spontaneously created itself. According to string theory, there is a possibility of multiple universes. Perhaps existence always was, or perhaps it is cyclical. Why exactly does it have to have a starting point?

    You believe there may be multiple universe with no evidence but there cant be a creator, that is my point your worldview can believe in unobserved oart clouds or multuniverse but not a creator its not within your worldview beliefs. To anyone with knowledge on this subject you keep making statements that you deny to be true, its pretty funny. You cant notice your own effects of your worldview or others that have your worldview.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Regarding the formation of personal opinions and beliefs: yes. You should attempt to gain as much insight on a topic from as many sources, biased or not, as possible. When you are debating, however, and you are trying to prove a point, your sources need to be neutral. If I was to post an article from yahwehisahomicidaldouchebag.com, you would laugh it off, and rightfully so: the source is highly biased.

    seriously? you need to respond logically to my post on everyone being bias first, than show me why c14 in diamonds is not real and invented by creationist websites, I mean maybe the continents are not eroding,maybe there are no such things as comets, a creationist conspiracy perhaps, because they wouldn't know anyways there bias we cant listen to them they believe the earth is young so when they point our problems life proteins decay away to fast to still be on fossils "millions" of years old we should not listen as they oviusly agree with that


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    You are going to need to stop saying evolutionists, it’s rather silly. Why not say “anti-creationists” instead? Many people disagree with creationism and question evolution (people who believe in intelligent design). And not all disagreements with creationism stem from the theory of evolution and natural selection; many of my own points of contention stem from my limited knowledge of astrophysics, for example.

    than stop saying creationist its rather silly, or maybe call people what they are by what they believe. Not dure what else your saying here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    That is quite the strawman. Human beings are not gods, nor do we establish any rules. We are merely observers, recording the world around us.

    obviously not all feel that way and you ignore the other quotes or why I posted them not because I think evolutionist think there gods



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Did you really just quote someone whos only claim to fame is that he graduated from Harvard, do you expect me to give a about anything that he stated?

    Cant help but notice you ignore what he said thoe? just saying hes a harvard grad 2 phd creationist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    What the ? Creationists didn’t start any major branches of science.
    If they have no regards for where information originated, then they are unscientific, idiotic, and just plain wrong. If I told you that a drug dealer theorized that cocaine is good for ones metabolism, what would be your largest point of contention? That’s right, the fact that a drug dealer postulated it; the fact that he has a vested interest in promoting his theory (he attributes beneficial health effects with cocaine, and he gets to sell more cocaine). The same is true of religious people advancing creationist ideas (by validating the bible, the beliefs that they hold to be true are validated).

    and you claiming there is some unobserved oart cloud or that biological remains decayed different in past or your rock cycle is not a vested interest in the belief of millions of years? seriously? and as said before the info originates from evolutionary journals,and even if someone has a vested intrist it does not mean there wrong
    I want my kids to eat healthy so they can be healthy I tell them a banana is healthy than a candy bar, am I wrong because I want them to be healthy, how you dont see the flaws in this logic blows my mind, you are incapable of seeing your own worldview.
    The fact you think creationist did not start the major branches of science makes me wonder what your doing in this discussion.



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology,
    University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada

    Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.






    Sciencewas not the work of western secularist or even diest, it was entirely the work of devout believers in a active,conciuos, creator god”
    rodney stark for the glory of god how monotheism led to reformations,science,witch hunts and the end of slavery Princeton university press 2003 p376









    it was in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born.
    In this newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound science will forever be in debt to biblical literalist “
    Stephen snobelen professor of history of science u of kings collage halifax canada.









    being able to do science is from the bible. science started by Christian's and a Christian world view being able to understand the world around us memory logic these all make sense to a creationist orderly universe laws of nature.
    if evolution is true how can we aspect us to understand the world around us were just matter acted on by mutation trying to understand the world around us. the only reason you are a evolutionist is because the chemicals in your brain make you. The only reason im a creationist is because my chemicals are acting difrently, there is no free will.




    here is a few examples of christian scientist . also shows science only makes sense in a biblical view not in a atheist view.

    http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#creationist

    http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god






    Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”8

    http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminarsHYPERLINK "http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10"&HYPERLINK "http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10"v=10

    http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminarsHYPERLINK "http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10"&HYPERLINK "http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10"v=10
    shows list of modern science and who sarted them each branch

    • The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
    • Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
    • Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
    • The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
    • The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’. Kepler also calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, close to Ussher’s.
    • The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
    • The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon. See also Exploring the heavens: Interview with NASA scientist Michael Tigges.








    • Vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner (1749–1823—note that Darwin published Origin in 1859)
    • Antisepsis by Joseph Lister, creationist.(1827–1912)
    • Anaesthesia by James Young Simpson (1811–1870), who believed that God was the first anaesthetist, citing Genesis 2:21.
    • Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist (1822–1895), who disproved spontaneous generation, still an evolutionary belief.
    • Antibiotics, developed without the slightest input of evolution, by the serendipitous discovery by Alexander Fleming (1881–1955), who had previously discovered lysozyme, the ‘body’s own antibiotic’. And Ernst Chain (1906–1979), who shared the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine with Fleming (and Howard Florey (1898–1968)) for discovering penicillin, was a devout Orthodox Jew and anti-Darwinian. His biography noted ‘Chain’s dismissal of Darwin’s theory of evolution’, and his belief that ‘evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation—and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view’. As an understanding of the development of life, Chain said, ‘a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.’ And speaking of certain evolutionary examples, he exclaimed, ‘I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’1
    • Insulin: its vital function was first discovered by the creationist Nicolae Paulescu (1869–1931), who named it ‘pancreine’. He anticipated the discoveries of Frederick Banting and John Macleod, who were awarded the 1923 Nobel Prize for Medicine for their work on insulin. See Denied the prize.

    A very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory … I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’—Ernst Chain, co-winner of 1945 Nobel Prize for discovery of penicillin, on Darwinian evolution
    In modern times, we have the outspoken biblical creationist Raymond Damadian (1936–), inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner, and Graeme Clark (1935–), the inventor of the Cochlear bionic ear who is a Christian.






    It should thus not be surprising, although it is for many people, that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive.18 A sample:
    Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
    Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
    Biology—Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
    Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
    Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
    Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler










    To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal.







    And the ‘Scientific Revolution’? It, like the term ‘Dark Ages’, was coined to discredit the medieval church. The notion has been used to claim that science burst forth only when weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth (p. 134



    Long before any so–called ‘Renaissance’, Europe’s technology advanced far beyond anything achieved by the ancients, with examples like waterwheels, milling technology, camshafts, clocks and the compass. While gunpowder was invented by the Chinese they never developed the gun (so it is a misnomer to call their invention ‘gunpowder’—they only used it in fireworks); it was Europeans who developed the gun and by the early 14th century cannon guns were all over Europe. All this progress occurred before the ‘rediscovery’ of classical knowledge. By the late 13th century Europe was the world leader in technology, philosophy and science and this had come from centuries of interaction between Christianity and the ‘barbarians’ who had much more sophisticated cultures than generally acknowledged (p. 134).



    Aristotle, for example, observed widely and theorized extensively, but he did not test his theories against his observations so he was not a scientist. Alchemy and astrology were highly developed in China, Islamic regions, India and ancient Greece and Rome, but only in medieval Europe did these become the sciences of chemistry and astronomy. ‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe.’ The leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork (pp. 123, 126–127).

    But what was the Christian difference? India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science? Stark’s answer is simple but profound—the Christian God was rational, responsive, dependable and omnipotent and the universe was his personal creation in which his divine nature was put on display for man’s benefit and instruction. Among the passages most commonly cited by medieval scholars was: ‘Thou has ordered all things in measure and number and weight.’1 Christians believed that science could be done and should be done.
    http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-HYPERLINK "http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god"glory-of-god








    The fall of man and the foundations of science
    http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295450739&sr=8-1-spell


    not to mention only the creation worldview can make sense of science as I posted earlier.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I’m not attacking your sources, I’m asking you to verify your points with neutral sources. All creationists attempt to verify their sources with published, neutral findings (such as findings reported by the paleontologist who found the tissue samples).

    So witch did I not do this with? Witch ones do you want sources for? and why are these facts not refuted or contested in phd debates on the age of the earth? and everything ive said on worldviews lol


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Excuse me while I laugh at the “atheistic religion” comment. That is the most oxymoronic thing I have ever heard in my entire life. You don’t even appreciate the irony, do you?

    Why are those lies, by the way? Can you disprove them? And yes, this is referring to vestigial organs, though I have never heard of primates being related to pigs. I’m fairly sure that it basically went like this: squirrels -> tree monkeys -> apes -> humans.

    already replied earlier to comment, I would love to show those to be lies, the pigs tooth was made to be a missing link for 40 years consider evidence for monkey like crerture evolving into ape, it was a pigs tooth, nebraska man, and apendix is useful if that is what your referring to.

    See also Your Appendix—It’s There for a Reason!
    It is known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.






    Darwin was wrong the appendix is a whole lot more than a evolutionary remnant
    journal of evolutionary biology aug 2009






    part of immune system without you have better chance of getting many diseases and infections
    There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure."—*William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149



    appendix removal also increases a persons susceptibility to leukemia hodkins disease cancer of the colon and cancer of the ovaries
    Walt brown in the beginning p118






    long regarded as a vestigial organ with no function in the human body the appendix is one of the sites where immune responses are initiated
    roy hartenstein , glorier encyclpidia 1998





    appendix- safe house for helpful bacteria – smith et al comparative anatomy and phylogenic distubution of the mammalian cecal appendix
    journal of evolutionary biology 22 [10] 2009


    apendicitis is not from a faculty appendix
    the appendix is useful and in fact promising
    live scince.com 24 aug 2009




    u
    Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.” N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.



    If you want more lies in textbooks watch debates or




    http://www.drdino.com/lies-in-the-te...eminar-part-4/ free online video 4



    How Textbooks Mislead DVD

    http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/...3v5l2bpo40vrc5


    What the Schools are Teaching DVD

    http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/...mp-p-1129.html



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Why would I want you to get info from yet another biased source? If you are unable to validate your arguments using neutral sources, then you have no argument at all.
    did you not read them? I said they orginate in evoluinst source we were refering to c14 in geolgical cloumn reported 70 times by evolutinst,but dont listen to those creationist they are bias they must invent this stuff up on some website.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    In your last post, you falsely accused me of asking you to prove the negative. In this post, you are actually asking me to prove the negative (apparently, you want me to prove that your claim is false before you are going to provide evidence for it?); the irony. The onus is on you to verify your claims. You can’t go around pulling claims from the nether reaches and not expect me to call you out on it – this is a debate.

    really? I showed the evidence, you cliamed they were contaminated so you have to show evidence that is how c14 is in diamonds. I think your lost here on what we were talking about. The responce is at top of page as well.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Holy . You actually responded to my post about proving the negative by asking me to prove the negative. Are you trolling me? Seriously? Again, the onus is on you to verify your claims.

    again read above I think your lost. Were talking of c14 in dimonds.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    So that is what you are referring to, now I understand. The very reason why radiocarbon dating is used up to ~20,000 years is because objects older than 20,000 years give false-positives and poor readings. This is because of beta decay. 20,000 year + objects emit so little radiation from C14 that measurements of the radiation generated by their C14 decay are drowned out by background radiation. Does that make sense? If it came out convoluted, let me know.

    It does very much its acully 60,000 but the point is yes it should be all gone detectable amount yet there is measurable amounts see the problem for old earth?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    You are dodging. Show me your supposedly accurate formula that incorporates polarity shifts and shows that the maximum age of the Earth is 90 million years.
    As I said all references are included in my last reply live links, tell me why this is a problem for my original argument. Or why the evidence is not against old earth claims, a linear decay would give only 90 mil max anyways. Not sure what your suggesting here.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    …More creationist articles, I feel like I’m debating with a broken record.

    as do I sister as do I dont debate the argument go after the source. Have I atcked any source you have used? no the facts it presents




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    No, it does not take one of the slowest erosion rates on Earth and apply it everywhere. It does the exact opposite, which is what I stated in the post you were commenting on. Basins and outcrops are the quickest geological formations to erode – their shape and composition make them flatten rather quickly (upon which the erosion rates are slowed dramatically; even your articles source acknowledges this, though your source obviously ignored it). This is basic physics. The study also took a mean of several areas. This does not account for geological changes (such as the area becoming emerged in water), or changes in weather patterns. Needless to say, nowhere does your source mention subduction or continental uplift, so it is failing to take into account the basics of the rock cycle.

    Actually my first post does mention these and takes them into account,and as I said the lowest possible erosion given to all earths surface gives age of 623 million years max, unrealistic and they are conservative numbers generous to old earth assumptions, and overall reduction taking the whole area in account.

    from article
    Water can do its eroding work once it falls as rain. It collects into regions called drainage basins

    basins is were all the sediment gathers to not originates from. Big difference here and refutes your claim just read more careful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Let me provide you with an example of why these static calculations and calculations on mean rates are ridiculous. I notice that it snowed half an inch each day last week, and that the Sun only melted a quarter of an inch each day. Let’s calculate this:

    5.45 billion years x 365 days x .25 inches of snow a day = 41,427,500,000,000 inches of snow.

    Why isn’t the world buried in 41,427,500,000,000 inches of snow?!?

    Do you see what I’m talking about? My “calculation” doesn’t take into account a single variable; the snow falls at varying rates, the suns radiance varies with the weather and with solar activity, there hasn’t been snow since day one of Earth’s creation, it won’t always snow, it snows at varying rates, years weren’t always 365 days, etc, etc, etc. In much the same way, your creatio0nist articles do not take the variables into account; they are static formulae that are calculating their figures using means and averages. In effect, this is the suppressing evidence.

    Do you see why I take issue with static formulae now?

    I agree but how you dont see that all variables are accounted for by measuring total erosion I dont know,as well as best variable possible is still to young for you. read more careful please. The only variables left out would help you



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Again, subduction and continental uplift, which your source fails to acknowledge. I saw what you did previously: you linked me one article about continental erosion, and then you pulled another article that mentioned subduction from another site. I’m onto you.
    no posted from a book originally that accounts for all, gave you reference article for numbers witch also answers all, showing you did not read it sounds like someone is on to someone



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    If “all will erode to the sea”, then we would see evidence of this. We don’t. All we have is a few unrelated averages.

    We dont because the earth is not billions of years oldwow that worldview



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Do you feel that you are incapable of continuing the debate without sourcing creationist sites?
    not at all , just give me good reason not to,as well as they originate almost all from evolutionist



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post

    I just talked about the Oort Cloud, let’s see how you addressed that portion.

    Dont see it, please retype


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    You didn’t address my points, either about Sedna, or about mathematical models that project the existence of matter on the edge of Earth’s gravitational field. Instead you (poorly) attack the creator of the theory. If this debate is just a means to advertise creationism, or if it is just a way to irritate/troll me, then let’s stop.

    what of sedna that it is there? ok I agree have we seen it supply comets no, so what you are referring to I dont know, this was a response to a email sent in before on sedna

    This is nonsense. Sedna (a Trans-Neptunian Object) is over 100 times the diameter of a typical comet (which means a million times the volume and mass). Really, this is as illogical as the following explanation for mice in an Indian farmhouse:
    ‘They came from a field.’
    ‘But I don’t see any mice in the field.’
    ‘But there is an elephant. And if we see an elephant, there must be mice.’
    Similarly, it is silly to point to objects like Sedna and Quaoar as proof of a reservoir of comets that are tiny by comparison.
    also what models are you referring to? reference?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Link me a site that points to a proposed creationist model, no need to splay it all over this already saturated debate.

    I agree ill send in pm later


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I think that creationism will dissipate over time because of this. No offense. If you want me to validate that particular opinion of mine with facts, I can, but something tells me that you will decline the presentation of these facts and skip right to bombarding me with nonsensical/fallacious rage.

    Please summerise what this evidence is since its off topic i dont care to read it all please summerise, Is this saying IQ scores are increasing? if true that proves creation and what I said evolution is losing ground creation moment started in the 1960's is gaining ground a IQ increases

    also I wrote this
    I like to think science takes precedence over evolution some dont, and notice how your worldview wont allow you to consider creation, your sure it will dissipate over time, why? evidence? no worldview I would love to debate science vs evolution as a topic title with you. Ill take the side of science you evolution.
    Science defined as testable repeatable demonstrable. Evolution is a religion opposed to science that ought to instigate you and I would love to show you.
    Not to mention there are more creationist know than ever the numbers are increasing rapidly,and more reject evolution even if not creationist than ever



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    That’s the problem, they don’t address my posts. They are (at best) vaguely relevant. You need to be able to argue for yourself.

    please give one exsaple if your referring to erosion rates its because you have misread, give me one exspale I have not replied to of yours? were what I said does not deal with what you claim was please



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Thousands of “phd scientists” could say that eating broccoli could cause you to grow a third testicle, but I still wouldn’t give two .


    yet you refer to the community of paleontologist etc will find a answer you like them when they agree with your worldview see how much your worldview effects your beliefs? its all over this debate




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    That is not extremely out of context, it says “Maximum Age of the Earth”. If they are using those measurements to calculate the age of the Earth, then the maximum age should be 100 years, according to the statistics they were quoting. You can’t cherry pick figures; either the whole graph is incorrect, or none of it is.

    did you not read my reply ill post again

    That is extremely selective out of context no? you said they believed the earth to be 100 years old, the article was just saying that you can get varied dates for the age of the ocean based on Unitarianism dating methods, witch are the assumptions evolutionist use to "prove" the earth is billions of years old showing the assumptions false and contradictory.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    This has nothing to do with creationism. Just because it is beyond the 10,000 year range doesn’t mean it has anything to do with the debate at hand. That’s rather paranoid; it’s like saying that paleontologists that specialize in dinosaur remains are all out to get the creationists because they don’t think that dinosaurs lived in the same timeframe as humans. Sociology and human paleontology supersedes this debate. If it doesn’t, then show me a counter theory by creationists. Unfortunately for you, you can’t, as they don’t have one in place. Their concern is undermining scientific theories that contradict the bible; I doubt they deeply care about human paleontology.

    It has to do with age of earth debate so yes it does, alot going on in this reply but ill post again what I asked for please be specific so I can respond. Also I love paleontology fossils etc they prove creation I would also do that debate as well fossil record support creation or evolution.

    I would love to go over this in detail I cant believe you dont see the assumptions and how this is not observed but simply the worldview scenario, and there are many archeologist and anthropologists who reject this story telling as I see it. Know what about this article specifically do you see as evidence against what I have said? That you have never herd of creation does not surprise me you have not herd a response to this.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    No, we ate meat from hunted animals prior to this. Here is an article on the cultivation of corn.

    As I said you have no references for your claims that you made last post and your corn evolution says this

    "maize cobs uncovered by archaeologists show the evolution of modern maize over thousands of years of selective breeding. Even the oldest archaeological samples bear an unmistakable resemblance to modern maize. "

    as I said we have changed food variation as we do today through breeding this is like breeds of dogs, This supports creation in every way just what I said, you claimed we bread grass into corn This is getting to be to much fun.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I will provide undeniable facts that prove the universe is over 10,000 years below these spoilers. As to your “current population growth matches as if it all started around the time of Noah’s Ark around 4,500 years ago” comment, prove it! Let’s see the formula!

    wait for it,first post read it number not sure population growth numbers.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Then why aren’t we submerged? There isn’t even enough water to submerge the continents entirely, much less create a flood. Prior to the Oligocene Era the polar ice caps were entirely melted, and there was no global flood then. In fact, continental organisms thrived during this period, and were found deep inland.

    alot of claims here and unrelizing the assumptions, witch is why i would need a 1v1 on this topic to address your faulty assumptions,but no there is enough water to cover all earth miles deep its in the oceans, all you need is to flatten the land or create the mountains as the bible said during the flood and the water drained into the current oceans, A quick read on creation flood models would answer how this happened and the evidence for.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    …Just as you “by no means need all” of the biblical figures to prove that they existed.

    Very nice,however the number of bodies fits thousands of years is what im saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    No it wouldn’t. When there is a discrepancy with a theory, it isn’t sound to immediately chuck it out the window. If we did, we would still be in the Stone Ages. There is virtually nothing in science that is without contradiction; even something as seemingly solid as the theory of gravity has issues.

    Well I agree 100% but mt point being is the worldview interpreters the evidence and conclusions, all evidence concerning decay rates of these objects says they cannot be as old as cliamed, I belive this is obviously evidence the old ages are wrong as all science [testing observation demonstartion] says this is true regarding this, your worldview sees it a just another problem that will be fixed with time, see how the evidence does not matter but the worldview?

    great debate that really brings this out

    http://www.americanvision.com/produc...the-Earth.html



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    The paleontological community is fairly united in the fact that the Earth is several billion years old. If it wasn’t, many of them would be out of a job.

    I agree if they found out they believe creation they would lilky be fired,you just admitted to much more than you thoght about disrimination.

    "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you
    can criticize the government but not Darwin."
    Chinese palaeontologist
    (Wall Street Journal, "The Church of Darwin", Phillip Johnson, August 16, 1999.)



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    evolutionist are the most intolerant of other beliefs out of any belief system in the world, they want there faith taught but no one else's if there views are challenged they dont stand up at all, so there only tactic is to be the only voice herd.
    There have been thousands of teachers and scientist who have been fire lost government grant money all because they did not believe in evolution or spoke out against it, or for even showing know lies or false information that is in textbooks.
    Evolutionist are know trying to ban words that teachers can use in science class refereed to as dangerous words or creation jargon, the words like evaluate analyze critique etc.
    Here are some great resources with cases and just how far evolutionist will go to indoctrinate and what happens to scientist and teachers who dare to question their sacred cow of evolution.
    http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/ book with many example's of what happens if you challenge Darwin
    http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ intelligent design movie about teachers being fired etc.
    how many do recherche from creation point of view but will tell public there evolutionist
    http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminarsHYPERLINK "http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10"&HYPERLINK "http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10"v=10 examples of many teachers scientist getting fired for challenging darwin theory


    free to think? no longer
    http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"s=booksHYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"qid=1301919284HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"sr=1-1




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I love debating, I don’t love watching or reading debates.

    you really should watch phd vs phd debates get the best of both sides instead of twcenter scholars such as us



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    How is that hoping or wishing? Do you propose that we don’t question paleontological findings? Some very prominent paleontologists questioned the validity of these findings, including the head editor and the head researcher of the National Geographic.

    You hope they decayed in a unobservable way to maintain the belief in millions of years and atheism, why do they question? not because evidence but belief and knowledge these things cannot last that long. Also can you find a reference from this year on that? as she has answered all objections.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Source?

    Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.



    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>




    “Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009







    Cody, G. D. et al. 2011. Molecular signature of chitin-protein complex in Paleozoic arthropods. Geology. 39 (3): 255-258.



    Berg, J. M., J. L. Tymoczko and L. Stryer. 2002. 9.1 Proteases: Facilitating a Difficult Reaction. In Biochemistry, 5th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman.



    Fossilized arthropod remains from the Paleozoic, a “310-million-year-old” scorpion cuticle and a “417-million-year-old” scorpion-like arthropod, were found to contain exoskeleton remnants.
    contrary to conventional belief, remains of chitin-protein complex—structural materials containing protein and polysaccharide—are present in abundance.”
    http://carnegiescience.edu/news/unexpected_exoskeleton_remnants_found_paleozoic_fossils





    40 times were soft tissue has been found and reported in evolutionist peer review with refrences
    http://www.icr.org/soft-tissue-list/








    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Let’s be realistic here, please. Scientists aren’t questioning scientific findings because they invalidate “evolutionism” here. Most people (including myself) don’t give a about creationism.

    lol,yet you have shown the same attitude and worldview



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    1. A sample petrifies.
    2. The petrified sample is buried beneath material that is softer than it (such as silt, or soil).
    3. The same amount of pressure is exerted upon the petrified sample that is upon the softer material. The softer material is compressed more than the harder petrified sample is.
    4. The strata are built around the petrified sample.

    Does this not make sense?

    kind of but I believe the sediments around were petrified at same time as logs, and your saying that still does not anwser as these are often standing strait up so all that sediment had to acumulate fast to bury the log, yet they are supose to be seperated by thousands and thousands of years even million I believe. Not A question of there formation but evolutionary dating of strata, we both agree they were fossilized fast, In fact many show they were washed into place with sediments

    http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catastr.../dp/0932766943



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Thrust faulting has plenty to do with your “flat gaps”. When one layer is placed onto another, it can cause a discrepancy in the dating of strata (obviously). Did you read my source? You ignored my other comment, by the way, that softer strata can be eroded whereas hard strata remain.

    Your missing my point, when the layers are first laid down if there is millions of years between that in the next layer as claimed by some, than there would be evidence for erosion depistion etc please source me again i missed it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Are you talking about rocks that slowly arc under heat and pressure, or?

    no that leaves evidence for that happening, but yes same kind of feature no evidence of heating "millions" of years worth of strata


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    That’s not a formula.

    And again, remember what I said about static formulae; remember my example about average snowfall? Same here.

    This works only if you dont understand that 80 is more than 40,do you believe 80 is more than 40? and if that keeps happening you'll end up with what? 0 no 40 plus 40 etc


    how in the hel% is it not a formula? your argument as degreaded into denying simple math



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    1. You didn’t verify that he is who you said he is. He could be your mother for all I know.
    2. He is an “astrophysicist” (if he can even be called that). His knowledge of C14 decomposition holds as much weight as mine.
    3. You need to be answering my questions, regardless.

    1] true true
    2]physics is very much involved with this not to mention there was multiple phd geologist in the rate group.
    3]did above, and was just saying further questions on and I can ask for you jerk...lol



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Theories regarding the creation of the moon predate creationism. Your paranoid, disjointed claims are disturbing.

    you missed what I said ill retype
    you claimed this as trying to exspalin recession of moon. This has nothing to do with science but evolutionary theory or magic if you will hopeful unobserved thinking and believing.

    I was saying your false claim you stated as fact yet it has evidence aginst and none for and does not answer earth moon system


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    You claimed that there were computer models to back this point up, I am merely asking you to show them to me.
    I did at top ,as I was just asking you to show evidence for what you claimed as well witch you cannot.
    Last edited by total relism; September 30, 2011 at 04:57 AM.


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









  12. #12

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    I am so sorry it could not take my entire response so I had to do a 2 part response sorry




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    We see star formation all the time, they are called planetary nebulae:


    wow a picture of space, must mean we have observed a star form please give me a reference as this has never happend.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    About the composition of Luna: there is no water in the Moons crust. There could be pockets of water deeper in it's crust or in its mantle, for all we know, but I doubt it. This doesn't however, say anything about the Moons origins, as any surface H2O would have obviously been prone the the hundreds of thousands of impacts that have happened on the lunar surface. And yes, there are ferrous compounds in lunar soil, I have no clue what you are talking about.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    no iron a earth moving away or broken away would have to pass the break up limit were the rocks would be torn apart

    but computer modals come up with no moon or multiple moons

    also were did the large object come from? probabilities is near zero. a collision could not create the moon
    ://www.icr.org/article/4837/
    http://creation.com/problems-for-giant-impact-origin-of-moon




    Regarding moon origin by an earth collision, a recent problem is that the moon contains too many water molecules which would have been vaporized away. The model result where two moons form is discussed at
    Gary, Stuart (August 4, 2011). "Earth May Have Had Two Moons". DiscoveryNews. http://news.discovery.com/space/two-...th-110804.html. Retrieved 2011-08-04. This is from Wikipedia, Giant Impact Hypothesis.

    Anything of this size hitting the earth would most likely destroy it. And most importantly there is no evidence of such a collision to begin with because such a hit would affect both the orbits of the moon and earth.

    And here is why you know this explanation is ad-hoc. The earth has heavy metals in its crust where the moon does not. What mechanism do the evos have that would separate the heavy metals from such a collision to make sure the earth would only have these metals and the moon would not??? Any type of collision even with a molten earth, especially with a molten earth and there would be this mixing of metals, but alas the moon does not have these.




    a Mars size object hitting the earth in the first place. The earth's orbit around the sun is an ellipse, but it is very near a circular orbit. Why is this important because to have such a collision you would need to account for all the kinetic energy this collision would cause. In other words, the earth being hit by something this large would change the earth's orbit so the earth would not have a near circular orbit around the sun.

    The same problem exists with the moon's orbit. It has almost a circular orbit around the earth. In all the computer simulations I have seen for this. Such a large mars size object would not leave the moon in a near circular orbit around the earth either. And one real caveat, many evo astronomers today say that if the earth was struck by an asteroid something as small as 100 miles wide it would destroy the earth. How could the earth withstand such a collision with a mars size object and survive to begin with???





    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    News Flash: Scientists don’t know things and are conducting research to further understand them! Scandalous!

    you claimed we have observed star formation they disagree as we never have you lied also only your faith and worldview make you believe someday just someday we will observe the formation of a star.Those worldviews.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Watch this.

    Masses of liquid function differently in zero gravity.
    wow that is crazy awesome, but tell me how this in anyway answers the objection?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    …I just showed that the moon does have metals in it’s crust.

    The earth has heavy metals in its crust where the moon does not. What mechanism do the evos have that would separate the heavy metals from such a collision to make sure the earth would only have these metals and the moon would not??? Any type of collision even with a molten earth, especially with a molten earth and there would be this mixing of metals, but alas the moon does not have these.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    So…what? Second-hand comments from unreferenced, unverifiable “astronomers” take precedence over my presented evidence why? “Evolutionist” theories, by the way, come and go because that is how science works. If he was actually an astronomer he would know that.

    As he said they come get dis proven and go, and no the facts matter

    "A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Yes, I did answer the Earth-Moon system point. You just failed to properly respond to my post. Don’t make me retype if you can help it, this post is already 18 pages as it is.

    And you don’t seem to understand the self-correcting nature of science at all. Otherwise, you wouldn’t expect every theory to be valid if and only if they are static and indefinitely correct.

    Not a self correcting nature of science that is a creationist best friend, it shows when people makes claims like the earth was hit my a mars size object, the moon was formed from this and ejected out past the brake up limit etc we can eventually use that self correcting nature in science to disprove those beliefs. remember what I said science vs evolution. Also you did not answer the lunar resesion as a old earth believer, as this does not answer the problem still of a maximum age of earth moon system witch is still to young

    even if your special pleading on moon origins was correct



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    What is this even referring to? I already stated that the Moon is about the same age as the Earth. And why are you using a source that states that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, isn’t that just “evolutionary bias”?

    I dont care of biases you do, I understand worldviews you dont, you say the moon brook off went into orbit past the breakup line magically than formed, in witch case it would be further out than it is know, it is only max 1.3 billions years distance out



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    More creationist crap. What a great way to end this section of our debate.

    no bias here

    conclusions so far of young earth dates no wonder you spoilerd them
    erosion rates you misunderstood one basic piece of information
    sediments salt etc you dont understand simple math
    magnetic field haven't offered anything agist or for your position specific
    earth moon terrible logic no evidence for and still would not answer problem
    fossil trees not sure what your trying to prove will need more back and forth
    bent rocks no erosion non answer to problem
    comets special pleading no evidence for evidence against
    human population decent job of making numbers within evolutionary worldview but still special pleading no evidence of fossil etc
    c14 waiting for response
    dropped any others


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    You stated in this post “also if you could prove that anything was around in 10,000 b.c I will coincide defet and you win debate”, so I intend to do so. I have responding with a proper counter-opinion for a bit too long.

    Now, you seem to take issue primarily with the theory of evolution and natural selection, and in doing so you have belittled the work of millions of people, including Charles Darwin himself, so I feel that the only appropriate way to end this debate is to verify my position using evolutionary biology itself.

    no creationist in the world does not agree with natural selection. Your ignorance of any other position surprise even me I have seen alot on these forums


    natural selection selects and cannot create, even given 100 billion years, if you worked in a car factory kept the good cars and through out the bad how long would it take to get a plane? It would never happen saying natural selection can lead to anything new evolving is anti-science and anti logic.
    Natural selection can select and cause new species to evolve but it cannot add information. Or evolve anything new that was not already in the genome of the animal, it can select traits already present in the animal but cant exspalin the origin of anything.


    Natural selection was thought of by a creationist over 20 years before Darwin.
    http://creation.com/charles-darwins-...ate-brainchild






    “Natural selection must not be equated with evolution, though the two are intimately related.”
    p8 Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986



    “Natural selection is common enough in natural populations to have been detected in a wide variety of organisms, and strong selection is not as rare as has been previously assumed; natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency.
    Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986



    “Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create “
    Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. She was married to the well-known atheist and astronomer, Carl Sagan Discover, April 2011, pp. 66–71.)




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    The Human Genome Project, which was completed in 2003, was an endeavor undertaken by the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Institute of Health, and various independent researchers to fully map out and sequence human DNA. According to the findings of the project, 223 genomes of our 30,000 genomes are directly related to bacteria, with many more being directly related to various single-cellular organisms.

    Given the undeniable disparity between proto-organisms, single cellular organisms, bacteria, etc and human beings, and with our current temporal understanding of evolution, the evolutionary processes required to transfer these genomes to human DNA would take billions of years to unfold. This is irrefutable.

    Im not sure what your trying to say here a genome is our entire genetic information yet you claim we have 223? wait 30,000? and claim were related to bacteria?
    First I have read francis collins the head of the genome project's book so anything you think they may have ill respond I wrote a 8 page response to it before. I just cant figure out what you trying to say, it sounds that you believe similarities prove a common ancestor? you asume we evolved from bacteria than say it would take billions of years to do with no evidence it happened

    Ill respond to the most famous similarities claim human chimp

    bias in previous chimp human comparisons and problems with this supposing proving common ancestor not common designator
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af0907.pdf





    2010 chimp y chromosome and human comparison are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
    many large sections had 10% similarity some human sections had no chimp counterpart
    gene content 53% different
    human y chromosome contains 33% more genes categories -which are entirely different classes of genes compared to chimps
    they guesses 70% overall similarity – which did not take into account size difference or structure arrangement differences,
    50% of human genes missing from chimp
    “the difference in 6 million years of separation of gene content in chimps and humans is more comparable to the difference in gene content of chickens and humans 310 million years ago”


    nature 463 [7280]536-539 hughs etal 2010
    http://www.icr.org/article/humans-cl...ey-are-chimps/




    David Page, who led the chimp Y chromosome sequencing project, said the two chromosomes are, “… horrendously different from each other … It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”8
    Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010.


    Half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence, and 30% of the entire MSY, has no counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa.
    Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010.


    they were additionally surprised to find that there were many fewer genes in chimp and many more genes in man, with “only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units.” That is, they found huge differences in the number and type of genes on the two Y chromosomes




    we now know that the old “humans and chimps are 99% identical” canard is passé. Interestingly, a significant paper appeared in 2007 calling the 99% rule “a myth” and claiming that we have known for decades that humans and chimps were much more different.9
    Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010




    sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60%
    march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers


    sea sponges share 70% with humans
    www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010




    "When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.




    the proof evolutionist need is organism upward change change not similarities
    If similarity proves common ans-ester clouds 100% water, water melon 97% the missing link is jellyfish 98%
    the honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts they are very similar , did they both evolve from a skateboard or was the same guy making them both for similar purposes?
    If there were a common designater you would aspect similarities like chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream would have similar ingredients than cake.
    god uses similarity's in creation to show one creator , animals have to have same basic biochemistry so we can eat.
    Also evolutionist have no problem distorting evidence to support there common ancestor idea in textbooks to help make sure the kids believe their religion
    https://store.creation.com/us/produc...d18eac9c1c24a8




    homologous structures come from different genes and some genes produce different structures showing common designer not ancestor
    p95 gretest hoax on earth
    http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php


    chapter 6 greatest hoax on earth homology better explained by by common designer one creator not many. http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php
    you can find us most related to or direct decedents of over a dozen animals with no evolution background



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Those animals that share the FOURTH type of aortic arch are these: dugongs, some bats, sea cows, duck-billed platypus, echidna, and human beings
    according to kysosyme we are closets related to a chicken
    richard e dickerson wanted to know when we branched off the family tree buy comparing lysozyme and lactibaubim found that we are direct decedents of chickens more closely related than anything
    the octopus eye has a eye that is most similar to us. fish have totally different. are we descendants of octopus?
    specific gravity of blood when test were done it was found snakes and frogs were more closely related to people than people are to apes and monkeys
    rat disease the plague only affects people and norway rats does this prove we descended from rats
    calcium/ phosshrus ration we are directly related to turtles and elephants - monkeys came from goose cytochrome c man more related to turtles than turtles to rattlesnakes people closer to bread mold than sunflowers are
    what about structures that are the same that evolved in totally different animals like the eye wing etc.. there are many eyes like flies compound eyes but cold not have evolved from each other





    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I also want to bring to light (forgive the terrible pun) another issue that was previously mentioned by people following this debate. Light. It takes tens of thousands of years for it to traverse the distance between one end of our galaxy to the other, and billions of years for it to traverse the universe. Object UDFj-39546284 is currently the farthest observed object in our universe, at over 13.2 billion light years away, according to the NASA article I just linked (although, it is even farther according to Hubble’s Law, which puts it roughly 30 billion light years away, but that is beside the point).

    If Yahweh created the universe 10,000 years ago, then why are we seeing light from 13.2 billion years ago?
    I would love to answer this [best evidence for old earth] as I have before on this forum, but I have to ask one question first how old do you believe the earth to be? in the range of 13-20 billion? less more? you may think this has nothing to do with my response to distant star light, but it does with one of the points ill be making. So I just need your statement on it please.
    Last edited by total relism; September 30, 2011 at 05:19 AM.


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









  13. #13
    Ancient Aliens's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Incagualchepec, Guatemala
    Posts
    3,215

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    You may have noticed that this post is comparatively short. That's because I'm reining this debate in. I refuse to allow you to bludgeon me into submission with inanity, like you normally do with your other "debates". I'm doing this for a number of reasons:
    1. For my sake. In the time it has taken me to respond to your posts, I could have written about 1/8th of a novel. I have to work, and I would also like to take my free time back.
    2. For the sake of the reader. Nobody wants to read 18 pages of your insults, me futilely battering at a wall of ignorance, or thousands of links to creationist articles.
    3. You violated several of our opening rules in every single one of your posts.
    4. You continued to parrot creationism articles.
    I have responded to your points in full, but I am going to reserve them until you are able to counter the points below. No more advertising creationism for you until you can invalidate "evolutionism". I should have done this earlier; allowing you to dictate the terms of this debate has cost me a lot of time/IQ points.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    Im not sure what your trying to say here
    It should be quite clear. We have bacterial DNA, therefore we inherited that from bacteria. Doing so would take longer than 10,000 years, based on our current understanding of evolution.


    a genome is our entire genetic information yet you claim we have 223? wait 30,000? and claim were related to bacteria?
    You know exactly what I'm talking about here. 223/30,000 human genomes are from bacterial DNA.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    First I have read francis collins the head of the genome project's book so anything you think they may have ill respond I wrote a 8 page response to it before. I just cant figure out what you trying to say, it sounds that you believe similarities prove a common ancestor? you asume we evolved from bacteria than say it would take billions of years to do with no evidence it happened

    Ill respond to the most famous similarities claim human chimp

    bias in previous chimp human comparisons and problems with this supposing proving common ancestor not common designator
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af0907.pdf





    2010 chimp y chromosome and human comparison are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
    many large sections had 10% similarity some human sections had no chimp counterpart
    gene content 53% different
    human y chromosome contains 33% more genes categories -which are entirely different classes of genes compared to chimps
    they guesses 70% overall similarity – which did not take into account size difference or structure arrangement differences,
    50% of human genes missing from chimp
    “the difference in 6 million years of separation of gene content in chimps and humans is more comparable to the difference in gene content of chickens and humans 310 million years ago”


    nature 463 [7280]536-539 hughs etal 2010
    http://www.icr.org/article/humans-cl...ey-are-chimps/




    David Page, who led the chimp Y chromosome sequencing project, said the two chromosomes are, “… horrendously different from each other … It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”8
    Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010.


    Half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence, and 30% of the entire MSY, has no counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa.
    Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010.


    they were additionally surprised to find that there were many fewer genes in chimp and many more genes in man, with “only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units.” That is, they found huge differences in the number and type of genes on the two Y chromosomes




    we now know that the old “humans and chimps are 99% identical” canard is passé. Interestingly, a significant paper appeared in 2007 calling the 99% rule “a myth” and claiming that we have known for decades that humans and chimps were much more different.9
    Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010




    sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60%
    march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers


    sea sponges share 70% with humans
    www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010




    "When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.




    the proof evolutionist need is organism upward change change not similarities
    If similarity proves common ans-ester clouds 100% water, water melon 97% the missing link is jellyfish 98%
    the honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts they are very similar , did they both evolve from a skateboard or was the same guy making them both for similar purposes?
    If there were a common designater you would aspect similarities like chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream would have similar ingredients than cake.
    god uses similarity's in creation to show one creator , animals have to have same basic biochemistry so we can eat.
    Also evolutionist have no problem distorting evidence to support there common ancestor idea in textbooks to help make sure the kids believe their religion
    https://store.creation.com/us/produc...d18eac9c1c24a8




    homologous structures come from different genes and some genes produce different structures showing common designer not ancestor
    p95 gretest hoax on earth
    http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php


    chapter 6 greatest hoax on earth homology better explained by by common designer one creator not many. http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php
    you can find us most related to or direct decedents of over a dozen animals with no evolution background



    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Those animals that share the FOURTH type of aortic arch are these: dugongs, some bats, sea cows, duck-billed platypus, echidna, and human beings
    according to kysosyme we are closets related to a chicken
    richard e dickerson wanted to know when we branched off the family tree buy comparing lysozyme and lactibaubim found that we are direct decedents of chickens more closely related than anything
    the octopus eye has a eye that is most similar to us. fish have totally different. are we descendants of octopus?
    specific gravity of blood when test were done it was found snakes and frogs were more closely related to people than people are to apes and monkeys
    rat disease the plague only affects people and norway rats does this prove we descended from rats
    calcium/ phosshrus ration we are directly related to turtles and elephants - monkeys came from goose cytochrome c man more related to turtles than turtles to rattlesnakes people closer to bread mold than sunflowers are
    what about structures that are the same that evolved in totally different animals like the eye wing etc.. there are many eyes like flies compound eyes but cold not have evolved from each other


    Nice strawman. I am talking about genetic similarities between bacteria and humans. I said nothing of our other genetic ancestories (though I could and would defend them, if I cared to). Address the point, don't dodge. Why do I specifically want you to address this point? Because your creationists articles don't say jack about them; you are going to have to create an original counter-argument.


    I would love to answer this [best evidence for old earth] as I have before on this forum, but I have to ask one question first how old do you believe the earth to be? in the range of 13-20 billion? less more? you may think this has nothing to do with my response to distant star light, but it does with one of the points ill be making. So I just need your statement on it please.
    You claim to appreciate and understand both sides of the argument, yet you don't even understand something as basic as the accepted age of the Earth? Do you not have access to Google? Stop embarassing yourself.

    The Earth is ~4.54 billion years old.
    Last edited by Ancient Aliens; October 01, 2011 at 01:29 AM.

  14. #14

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    You may have noticed that this post is comparatively short. That's because I'm reining this debate in. I refuse to allow you to bludgeon me into submission with inanity, like you normally do with your other "debates". I'm doing this for a number of reasons:

    First i was thinking the same thing we got alittle off topic no? but I would not call it bludgeon you into submission when all I did was respond to everything you said it was alot to respond to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post

    1. For my sake. In the time it has taken me to respond to your posts, I could have written about 1/8th of a novel. I have to work, and I would also like to take my free time back.
    2. For the sake of the reader. Nobody wants to read 18 pages of your insults, me futilely battering at a wall of ignorance, or thousands of links to creationist articles.
    you call my responses insults? I did not mean the worldview stuff and how you dont notice it a insult at all, just a fact. Also lets take a few exsaple of on topic responses

    you said this

    Source?

    I replied with this

    Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.

    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>


    “Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009


    Cody, G. D. et al. 2011. Molecular signature of chitin-protein complex in Paleozoic arthropods. Geology. 39 (3): 255-258.


    Berg, J. M., J. L. Tymoczko and L. Stryer. 2002. 9.1 Proteases: Facilitating a Difficult Reaction. In Biochemistry, 5th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Fossilized arthropod remains from the Paleozoic, a “310-million-year-old” scorpion cuticle and a “417-million-year-old” scorpion-like arthropod, were found to contain exoskeleton remnants.
    contrary to conventional belief, remains of chitin-protein complex—structural materials containing protein and polysaccharide—are present in abundance.”
    http://carnegiescience.edu/news/unexpected_exoskeleton_remnants_found_paleozoic_fossils


    40 times were soft tissue has been found and reported in evolutionist peer review with refrences
    http://www.icr.org/soft-tissue-list/


    how insulting of me how could i?

    than you said this


    "Firstly, you are going to need to provide a source that proves that uranium contamination doesn't effect diamonds, or that a sample would have to be 99% uranium for it to be effected by uranium fission. Frankly, you seem to be pulling these figures out of thin air (or, as is more likely the case, your site doesn't mention or counter this, so you are floundering)."


    I posted this

    "A very small fraction of decays [Ra, Th, U] produces C-14...In fact, the generation of carbon-14 by the decay of heavy nuclei results in an amount at least 100,000 times less than the actual C-14 found in samples of coal and diamond"


    Than I cant help but notice you must ignore everything I point out on worldviews and you logic of bias sources, not to mention your claims fail and that could be the reason you dont want to pay attention anymore? that the data orginates from evolutinary sources? why not respond I gave the references to evolutionist sources than you stop responding every time.
    Its because your last attempt is to attack source out of desperation, so when I give the original evolutionary source you have to change the debate and try to bring it off topic from young earth evidence to were it is know and say my post are to long for responding.

    so conclusion than so far on young earth evidence.

    1] C14 reported 70 times in evolutionary journals

    notice the sources not creation


    P. Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30.

    R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287


    your objection was this

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    "Firstly, you are going to need to provide a source that proves that uranium contamination doesn't effect diamonds, or that a sample would have to be 99% uranium for it to be effected by uranium fission. Frankly, you seem to be pulling these figures out of thin air (or, as is more likely the case, your site doesn't mention or counter this, so you are floundering)."



    response

    "A very small fraction of decays [Ra, Th, U] produces C-14...In fact, the generation of carbon-14 by the decay of heavy nuclei results in an amount at least 100,000 times less than the actual C-14 found in samples of coal and diamond"

    so know its up to you to show this fact to be not true.


    2] decay of magnetic field- not objected to in any phd debate only here on twcenter forums the measurable decay was published in evolutionary source
    A.LMcDonald and R.H Gunst 1967 ana analaysis of the earths magnetic feild from 1935 to 1964 ESSA Teachnical reports IER 46-IES1,washington US goverment printing office.

    you cannot or have not challenged the 5% decay rate measured or that it has been shown to be 40% decayed since ad 1000

    R.T. Merrill and M.W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press, London, pp. 101–106, 1983

    so your objection has been

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The keyword here is “current”, as the strength of our geomagnetic field is subject to fluctuation. While the cause and the rate of this fluctuation remains unknown, the geomagnetic field has been subject to increases in strength, decreases in strength, and even geomagnetic polarity reversals.


    I said

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    its a overall decay correct? right reversals are accounted for its still a overall decay. Unitarianism no? not to mention dynamo fails badly and even if true still gives a maximum age of 98 million not billions


    than you said

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Ok then, Show me the specific formula that incorporates polarity shifts and limits the "maximum age" of the Earth to 90 million years (which, by the way, is a far cry from your "thousands of years").



    then I said

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Show me a evolutionary model that has evidence to support it? the evidence supports the constant overall decay oviusly of the creation model, not to mention the creation model has successfully predicted something like 7 planets and 2 moons acuralty the strength of there magnetic fields while the evolutionary model has been was off.


    all references within that you will need.
    http://creation.com/the-earths-magne...th-is-young#f8

    another good reference would be
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...the-universe-2

    look under
    Getting Around the Magnetic Field Evidence and

    Magnetic Dynamo Versus Magnetic Decay



    so yes i references creation sources here as you asked for the creation model. however you gave no evidence for the linear decay as there is none as proposed by evolutionist witch would give a age of 98 million max,all evidence supports Exponential decay and 10,000 year max. Creation sources are not needed as evidence against long agrees just to show how it fits creation model.


    3]erosion rates of continents

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.
    using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years” and similar for all above land surfaces.

    As one evolutionist said “ if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
    C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668
    J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264

    S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155




    notice the sources I gave right off non creation

    you replied

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This is your worst argument, by far. Anyone with a high school-level comprehension of geology knows that sediment created by erosion goes to the sea floor (which you mention later on) through river deltas, etc. This sediment goes through the process of subduction, becoming magma. Then, the magma is ejected from volcanoes and oceanic rifts, recreating the eroded land. Think of it as a cycle.



    I said

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Thats funny because i see it the same way any highschooler can see through your argument against erosion ages, we would have no old age layers because they would have been eroded and replaced many times over 250 in fact, not to mention we would still have no above water mountains earth etc they would have eroded away, along with all those fossils millions of years old


    you said [ignored what I said and repeated your argument]
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Again, geological activity (such as volcanism and plate tectonics) replenishes landmass faster than it erodes. This process is called the rock cycle. I learned about it in my first year of high school, how about you?


    I replied read bold

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    I fully understand yet you are missing the points here, erosion is greater than is replenished, so you are lying there. and you ignore what i said, we would have no old age layers because they would have been eroded and replaced many times over 250 in fact, not to mention we would still have no above water mountains earth etc they would have eroded away, along with all those fossils millions of years old

    if what you said is true it would replace all the older sediments with new "younger" rock



    you than see the problem and switch your attack

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Before you go saying that I am a liar, look at your own source, which bases its estimations of basins. Basins are far more easily eroded than hills or mountains, so incorporating the erosion rate of a usually geologically inactive, highly erodible area into a formula to determine the erosion rate of all landmass is suppressing evidence.


    I replied

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    you did not answer what i said that erosion is greater,but yes they measure basins that is total amount of erosion [done 12 times by evolutionist to get numbers] of all landscape, so they are not selecting data, the evolutionist recognize this as a problem as well, and what i did not say was taking the lowest possible numbers of erosion of any surface of 1mm per thousand years would give a maximum age of 623 million years, however this is not realistic as it takes lowest erosion found anywhere and applies to all earths surface, not to mention things like catastrophic erosion from hurricanes floods etc when rates are increased by Hugh amounts, and mountain areas such as himalayas appalachians, and the caledonides have rates of 1,000mm alot more than norm so im not sure what your saying about mountains. Also you ignore what i said the layers would have been replaced over and over by newer rock and the top layers eroded away.

    H.W Menard 1961 some rates of erosion journal of geology 69 154-161


    look at source again evolutionary

    you replied with no sources or evidence

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    That is the case - in geologically and biologically inactive areas. In active areas the rate of replenishment counters erosion.

    You are still failing to grasp this concept in its entirety, so let's use a forest as an example. The trees in a forest act as a windbreak, hampering aerial erosion. Plants, animals, and fungi are very active in forests and their remains/feces creates a good deal of rich soil with which trees nourish themselves. When the trees leaves fall, they create a protective layer over the soil, and the soil continues to pile on top of itself, for millions of years. While the forest may have disappeared after this amount of time, the remains it left behind stay buried beneath the ground where they receive an enormous amount of pressure from the layers above it, eventually mineralizing each layer. While this is an over-simplified example, it illustrates how rock replenishes itself.


    I said

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    lol, instead of blaming creationist for using problems that evolutionist own sources point out and not understanding some things happen at a greater rate than others and that outweighs the other by a measurable amount. Maybe you should just maybe consider you might be wrong?

    “ if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
    C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668

    J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264



    S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155


    So either the evolutionist who did the study's 12 overall, the ones who wrote the articles and there peer reviewers in the journals ,the phd creationist in geology, the debaters for the evolutionist side in the debates i have watched and the study's that show reduction of all continents are wrong, or your wrong no offence but maybe your not grasping it enough, notice how you never even offer amount of new rock being created your way on the surface, got a reference? maybe its all a conspiracy led on by the creationist hhhhmmm thats right a big conspiracy you cant listen to them there bias..



    so noone accept your self sees this as a way out of the problem,you offer no reference or numbers for your rescuing devise you simply mention a way you believe rock is created at the surface with you admit takes millions of years, yet in 9.6 your continent is gonewhile you try to create alittle rock somewhere and you think this answers the problem.


    4] moon earth system
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1˝ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces would have shattered it. 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 is the maximum possible age.
    I also recently email a tenured professor he told me it is estimated that the waves would have been a mile high near the roche limit, and we would have seen evidence of this in geological clomun,not to mention the drowning of Hugh numbers of animals from these waves.


    you replied with this,great original responce

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Remember what I said about checking the calculations myself? Well...

    The distance from the Moon to the Earth = 238,857 miles
    One mile = 63,360 inches
    238,857 miles = 15,133,979,520 inches
    15,133,979,520 inches divided by 1.5 inches per year = 10,089,319,680 (>10 billion) years

    That was using the same data that your site used to obtain it’s magical 1.37 billion year figure with (it didn’t input the increased rate of Lunas recession, either). Again, anyone with a calculator could figure this one out.

    In the primordial stages of planetary formation, when a Mars-sized object collided with our early planet, it ejected the matter that would eventually coalesce to become our moon beyond the Roche Limit (in other words, the moon didn’t magically appear at the Roche Limit and move outward at a consistent rate). This accounts for the discrepancy regarding the age of our planet as I calculated above. And in actuality (contrary to your link), the rate of Lunas recession would be slower than it is today, as tidal friction would have been lesser during its formation


    I replied with this


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    however i missed one and emailed a few people so here is what they said of lunar resesion

    This from a phd rate group scientist the c14 in diamonds guys

    Your debate opponent is dead wrong. The rate of recession would have been much greater in the past, when the moon would have been closer to earth. The rate increases strongly (as the inverse sixth power) as one shortens the earth-moon distance. Even uniformitarian articles on the issue acknowledge that, and they also give a few billion years for the time involved.

    Just challenge your friend to publish his revolutionary findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If he were right, the uniformitarian journals would be happy to lengthen the time by a few billion years. But that won't happen.

    A good reference for this is Don DeYoung's article "The Earth-Moon System", in the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, pp. 79-83, 1990,. The bound proceedings are available at low cost here:
    http://www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php
    and here is a free article i was referenced by author
    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...%20DeYoung.pdf

    this is a response to your direct numbers almost
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...unar-recession


    origin of moon problems
    today collision theory large object hit us partially melting earth mass debris in earth orbit formed moon.
    but computer modals come up with no moon or multiple moons. moon rock composition is much different from earths no iron no water a earth moving away or broken away would have to pass the break up limit were the rocks would be torn apart
    also were did the large object come from? probabilities is near zero. a collision could not create the moon


    its hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water... thats a really really difficult knot to untie”
    npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story id=92383117&ft=1&=1001
    24 may 2010
    I would first ask what hard evidence does this person have at all for this ad-hoc special pleading argument for a Mars size object hitting the earth in the first place. The earth's orbit around the sun is an ellipse, but it is very near a circular orbit. Why is this important because to have such a collision you would need to account for all the kinetic energy this collision would cause. In other words, the earth being hit by something this large would change the earth's orbit so the earth would not have a near circular orbit around the sun.

    The same problem exists with the moon's orbit. It has almost a circular orbit around the earth. In all the computer simulations I have seen for this. Such a large mars size object would not leave the moon in a near circular orbit around the earth either. And one real caveat, many evo astronomers today say that if the earth was struck by an asteroid something as small as 100 miles wide it would destroy the earth. How could the earth withstand such a collision with a mars size object and survive to begin with???


    other
    All of the theories for the moon, like it breaking off from the earth, have been discounted by evolutionists. The only one left alive is the small planet colliding with the earth and the resulting dust and chunks making the moon. But, evolution requires it happened very early in earth history, not as recently as less than 2B years ago, as even your critic acknowledges.





    your origin of moon with no evidence for and much against still does not answer the problem even if true as I point out later and the guy did in this email as well.

    you reply not with facts but this


    we also go back and forth with moon but unimportant to discussion and you also dopr that.

    I replied with this

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Also you did not answer the lunar resesion as a old earth believer, as this does not answer the problem still of a maximum age of earth moon system witch is still to young

    according to national geographic
    By measuring the ages of lunar rocks, we know that the moon is about 4.6 billion years old, or about the same age as Earth.

    so this does not even dress the issue even if you were correct

    this video goes through the history of the origin of moon theories of the evolutionist and earth moon system age of etc. free online

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...r-created-moon



    you replied with claim that you responded but were lost in 18 pages and could not find

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Yes, I did answer the Earth-Moon system point. You just failed to properly respond to my post. Don’t make me retype if you can help it, this post is already 18 pages as it is.

    I replied
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Also you did not answer the lunar resesion as a old earth believer, as this does not answer the problem still of a maximum age of earth moon system witch is still to young

    even if your special pleading on moon origins was correct

    so even your no evidence for rescuing devise were true, it does not answer the problem.

    5] comets disintegrate to fast

    According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years.
    Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years,this is what causes the tails on the comets. So if the universe were as old as claimed why than are there still comets?


    you said this
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    They sure do. But the funny thing about comets is that they only have trajectories that put them in proximity with the Sun when they have been moved by an external force (this dynamic is usually caused by collisions between Kuiper Belt objects). Otherwise, they generally drift in the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud, far away from the Sun.



    I replied
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    maximum age of long term comets i have herd 200,000 at best usually 100,000. however have you ever observed this oart cloud you talk as thoe you have, thing is noone has ever seen it or observed it it is imagined and believed by the faithful who need it for billions of years pure imagination. The kupitor belt helps not at all as well, as this has never been observed to do what you claim it can do and has the wrong composition to be the origin of our comets in our universe.


    you said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    You may have "herd" that comets last 100,000 to 200,000 years, but you have yet to provide a source that validates this. Sure, you can say "this comet is losting X amount of mass per year, and has Y mass, so it should have evaporated billions of years ago". But you cannot say for certain that the mass being lost by a comet today is the same as it was billions of years ago. The comet in your example may be shedding a portion of it's mass that is more prone to sublimation (ice, for example).


    I said

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    source lets go to your trusted site wiki
    Comets have a wide range of orbital periods, ranging from a few years to hundreds of thousands of years

    no were will you find any evolutionist claim they will last millions or billions of years old 200,000 is the max i have ever herd anywhere from mutiple sources. As long as its in orbit in our universe it loses mass,and leves dust behind so yes we can tell, otherwise why do they invent things like the oart cloud?



    you said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    I am going to have to call you out on the "evolutionists invented the Oort Cloud" nonsense. The Oort Cloud (which wasn't "invented" by evolutionary biologists ) is theorized to exist for two reasons:
    • The existence of long-period comets.
    • Mathematical models that indicate the presence of matter in the outer reaches of our Suns gravitational field.

    I would point to certain post-Neptunian objects, such as Sedna, as indicators of the existence of the Oort Cloud.



    I said

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    et there is nothing scientific about it, it is not observed never has been, it is only believed to be there based on naturalistic materialistic assumptions that the world is billions of years old, so there must be some kind of "oart cloud" supplying new comets, and anyone who does not have faith in the oart cloud [creationist] are called unscientific and bible thumpers
    yes how you dont see it i dont know they believe its there based on there worldview not science, yes also i here there is alot of matter out there because there is matter than it must mean comets are being supplied to our solar system? how much faith do you need for your worldview



    you said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    You didn’t address my points, either about Sedna, or about mathematical models that project the existence of matter on the edge of Earth’s gravitational field. Instead you (poorly) attack the creator of the theory. If this debate is just a means to advertise creationism, or if it is just a way to irritate/troll me, then let’s stop.



    I replied

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    what of sedna that it is there? ok I agree have we seen it supply comets no, so what you are referring to I dont know, this was a response to a email sent in before on sedna

    This is nonsense. Sedna (a Trans-Neptunian Object) is over 100 times the diameter of a typical comet (which means a million times the volume and mass). Really, this is as illogical as the following explanation for mice in an Indian farmhouse:
    ‘They came from a field.’
    ‘But I don’t see any mice in the field.’
    ‘But there is an elephant. And if we see an elephant, there must be mice.’
    Similarly, it is silly to point to objects like Sedna and Quaoar as proof of a reservoir of comets that are tiny by comparison.
    also what models are you referring to? reference?


    so we can see you offer nothing of evidence only wishful thinking to try to answer.


    6] Human population numbers
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    A population of only .01% growth in human population numbers would give 10 to the 43 power number of people for evolutinst so if we have evolved for millions of years were are all the people?

    A growth rate of only .05% per year would fit perfect with the creation and young earth,much more r elastic than evolutionary numbers.
    Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
    say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square meter per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square meters. If every one of those square meters were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043
    With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth
    http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people





    you replied
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This is incredibly basic. It doesn’t matter what a projected populational growth rate is. If a member of the population starves, dehydrates, or is killed by other external forces (predatory animals, other humans, etc), it can’t reproduce. Tribes of hunter-gatherers were not able to collect a substantial amount of food, and this limited the size of their populations to relatively few members. It was only after the Agricultural Revolution (which was about 10,000 years ago) that we see a continual increase in the population of Homo Sapiens. This is because there was a larger amount of consistent food, and because the sedentary tribes were less prone to being killed by predators (as they lived in semi-permanent and eventually permanent dwellings).

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I liked the “this would be so much simpler if there was a massive flood 4,500 years ago” section particularly. As if Occam’s Razor is relevant to your point – I doubt you could prove that there was a global flood event, and it is a far more complicated answer than “they couldn’t get enough food for their population to grow”.


    I replied

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    First i offer a debate on noahs flood after this if you accept ill show you the evidence for a global flood.

    I was saying the current growth rate shows a constant rate from 8 people 4,500 years ago it fits the creation model.

    so the answer this you claim starvation etc. this is hard for me to accept, man grows to hundred maybe 40 than they all die off almost? than again than again etc for millions of years untill recorded history than they start the steady increse that we observe not to mention that would have drove us in extinction genetically because of close intermarriage and mutations.
    What of those that migrate to say asia europe out of africa etc they all over the world faced near extinction over and over? you would need a global flood to do that with a few noahs arks

    as responded in the article i linked
    Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

    and were are all the graves of these bodies that dies? as pointed out again in the article.
    Where are all the bodies?

    Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the Earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.



    you said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Again, the steady increase in population of Homo Sapiens happened because of the abundance of food provided by sedentary agriculture. Until this occured, tribes of hunter-gatherers only had as many members as they were able to feed. What is it about this concept that is so implausible to you, specifically?
    A populational plateau effect doesn't mean that the same 50 people would compose a tribe for 40 years and intermarry. People were mobile (because of their need to gather food), and interbred with other tribes. The mortality rate and the birth rate of these tribes were also proportionally high, as they lived in a harsh environment. This ensured that the population wasn't consistent, and that interbreeding didn't occur often. Besides, most human beings have natural instincts that prohibit incestuous actions, as you should (hopefully) already know.
    Bodies disintegrate. And we find thousands of artifacts from the Paleolithic Era every year. Those that we don't find have decomposed, were repurposed in milleniums past, or are still buried beneath thousands of years worth of soil and rock, waiting to be found.


    I said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    First there is no proof for what your saying this is assumed,second if there were hunter gathers etc for these long periods we would have found many bodies grave sites etc, human bones can easily remain 200,000 years and artifacts etc, instead only a few thousand showing the supposed long periods likely did not happen, also there is much evidence the "stone age" people were as intelligent as we are today just not as advanced as that comes with time building on earlier discoveries etc. they even kept records of lunar phases cooked etc yet suposivly 8 million of them living around the world could not figure out seeds from plants created new ones that gave more food?
    Then all a sudden right around the bible says man appears he starts a continual growth rate to present? all that time he could not figure out anything? see why this is hard to belive?
    Harsh environments today such as Africa India etc have higher birth rates than america britian etc and the gene pool would be quickly depleted and bottlenecks would happen often in your scenario of small group hunter gathers.
    I was saying to keep the population low for all that time all over earth would need a near global flood
    read above and this is a unobserved rescuing devise well find ham later, we have looked well find more but we should have found great numbers already if what you say is true.


    you said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    There's no proof? The Neolithic Revolution is nearly universally accepted within the archaeological and paleontological communities, and I haven't as of yet heard a single legitimate counter-claim...
    You seem to be rather disdainful of early farmers. Are you aware of the fact that most grain crops (our agricultural staple, even today) took thousands of years to cultivate intho their current states? Some of the plants that early farmers cultivated weren't even originally edible. Take corn for example, which was originally a species of grass. It wasn't a simple matter of "figuring out that seeds from plants created new ones - as you said early man was intelligent and he undoubtedly knew this. The problem was transitioning between hunting for food that was necessary for the survival of a tribe (which took precedence over dicking off with seeds, no doubt) and becoming entirely dependant on agriculture.
    ...No. The Agricultural Revolution took place anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 BC depending on the region, possibly earlier still (thanks to recent finds, such as Gobekli Tepe). The bible places the creation of the world sometime around 4,000 BC. That's not "right around the time man appeared in the bible", according to biblical chronology the Agricultural Revolution happened 6,000 years prior to the creation of the world (which is a huge amount of time for people who think the world is only 6,000 years old).
    Look. You believe that biblical figures (Noah, Jonah, Moses, etc) existed, yes? Then where are they buried? The answer applies to our own topic: ancient human remains and gravesites deteriorate, and are buried beneath thousands of years worth of soil and debris over time.



    I said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I would love to go over this in detail I cant belive you dont see the assumptions and how this is not observed but simply the worldview scenario, and there are many archeologist and anthropologists who reject this story telling as I see it. Know what about this article specifically do you see as evidence against what I have said? That you have never herd of creation does not surprise me you have not herd a response to this.
    do you have references for any of this? very interesting, are you sugesting we did not have anything to eat for these long periods non meat? no dout we have changed and altered the food we eat today over time, its know very deficient in nutrients etc. and there was enogh food producing items back than,when have we changed a grass into corn? is that true? referenc
    I was refereeing to population growth, not evolutionary assumptions and dating methods, todays population growth and recorded histories matches as if it all started around the time of noahs ark around 4,500 years ago, also if you could prove that anything was around in 10,000 b.c I will coincide defet and you win debate. [Please wait for after this to present evidence] or it will get messy
    Very easily I have answered this a few times on these forums and this would be a great question on a debate on a global flood.
    A fact to consider there is enogh water in the oceans to cover the earth entirely in water a few miles deep
    We actually know were some of the figures of genesis are buried, but the "primitive" men you refer to in numbers dont need name tags they just need to be there. You by no means need all of them.




    you said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    No, we ate meat from hunted animals prior to this. Here is an article on the cultivation of corn.


    I said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    As I said you have no references for your claims that you made last post and your corn evolution says this

    "maize cobs uncovered by archaeologists show the evolution of modern maize over thousands of years of selective breeding. Even the oldest archaeological samples bear an unmistakable resemblance to modern maize. "

    as I said we have changed food variation as we do today through breeding this is like breeds of dogs, This supports creation in every way just what I said, you claimed we bread grass into corn This is getting to be to much fun.



    so you did good job of exspalining it within a old age worldview, however it is still evidence for a young earth and young population of humans as it is what you would aspect, and it shows as all these do evolutionist must attack Uniformitarism assumptions when it does not match there beliefs showing it is a self contradictory assumption and false.


    7]7] Salt in the sea
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    giving best assumptions to evolutionist and ignoring some data for them, The salt in the sea would have accumulated in a maximum of 62 million years, far less than the age given by evolutionist.


    many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans.
    This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old.
    Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans.

    Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.


    the rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year

    assuming the oceans originally had no sodium and given the best possible assumptions and rates for evolutionist, than the current sodium would have accumulated in less than 62 million years. Far less than the 3 billion they claim the oceans to be.

    Also more recent studies show salt is entering much faster than previously thought, showing more groundwater which is higher concentration of salt is being discharged via river flow more than 40% than the previously thought 10%



    you replied
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    You forget (again) that while salt enters oceans, it is also removed via precipitation, continental uplift, etc.


    I replied
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    are you working off talk origins? had you read my writing on this you would see this is taken in account for as i mention how much is removed and i mention a few process not taken into account that would make it worse for you


    witch i dident just thought i did

    you rightly said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Again, I don't understand this portion.


    I said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    read under my first post number 7 I show how much is removed and how it is calculated into the numbers,and how others are not calculated in helping you being generous to you.


    witch it dosent

    you said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I still don't understand what you are getting at here, I'm afraid.


    this is actually pretty funny

    I said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    not sure how your not getting it, read number 7 on my first post, it tells how much salt is being both put in and taken out of the ocean, and how the total salt is increasing, so your response ignores that making me believe you could not possible have read it before looking for a response


    Im a idiot


    holy crap I never gave number i am so sorry here

    many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans.
    This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old.
    Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans.
    Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.


    M ,Meybeck, 1979 concentrations des eaux fluvials en majeurs et apports aux oceans, revuede geologie dynamique et de geographie Physique 21 [3] 215-246 F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779




    the rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year.




    F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779
    S.A Austin and D R Humphreys 1990 the seas missing salt proceedings of the second international conference on creationism vol 2 R E Walsh and C L books,eds Pittsburgh Pa creation science fellowship 17-33






    assuming the oceans originally had no sodium and given the best possible assumptions and rates for evolutionist, than the current sodium would have accumulated in less than 62 million years. Far less than the 3 billion they claim the oceans to be.




    Also more recent studies show salt is entering much faster than previously thought, showing more groundwater which is higher concentration of salt is being discharged via river flow more than 40% than the previously thought 10%.


    W S Moore 1996 Large groundwater inputs to coastal waters reveled by 226 Ra enrichments Nature, 380 [6575] 612-614 T M church 1996 An underground route for the water cycle Nature 380 [6575] 579-580





    notice no creation sources


    8] fossil soft tissue blood protein etc.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    collagen [ a protein] found on fossils dated as 80ma , yet proven cannot last more than 2.7 ma frozen.,so we can test it decay in lab real science that gives maximum age of 2.7 million frozen best conditions possible, yet it is found on fossils dated millions of years old.

    Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation30(3):12–15, 2008.

    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
    http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf


    no creation sources

    you said

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I looked this example up, and what was found was a few isolated, mineralized fragments of collagen, not actual collagen.


    I said
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    witch reference did you look up? are you denying that fossil contain these things? there are know over 40 finds of this or other similar structures that should not be on suposed millions of year old bones, tell me what your objecting to and ill respond.


    you
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    How exactly do you know that what is and isn't supposed to be found on fossils? At what point does collagen and tissue samples deteriorate during which conditions and why? These questions are still being asked and answered by the paleontological community, so I don't know from where you are getting your figures that indicate that anything shouldn't be found on a specific sample. Without specifying the conditions in which a sample was found, no proper conclusions can be drawn. Take resin, for example. It can perfectly preserve tissue samples from hundreds of millions of years ago. Your creationism article stating that the sample had tissue on it doesn't prove anything in and of itself.


    me
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    by the decay rate tested in laboratories we can tell how fast things decay. when something is observed in testing to decay at a certain rate and say decay away in 1 million years,than if a fossil said to be 70 million contains that product then the fossil is not 70 million years.

    here are many references this is not even debated, there are many exspales of this all over i cant believe you are questioning it somehow. ever watch a debate on the age of the earth?

    Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.
    "Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
    Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.
    many reference within
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/2923022/An...issues-and-DNA

    There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long


    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <
    www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c> Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009


    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <
    www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
    http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf

    It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.
    Nielsen-Marsch, C.,
    Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation30(3):12–15, 2008



    you
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Like I said, if (and take note of the fact that I am using the word if here) this does pan out, it will change the way we look at fossils, by showing paleontologists that such biological material doesn't always deteriorate after millions of years, depending on the condition. That being said, many notable paleontologists question Ms. Schweitzer's findings. Some believe that due to the presence of peptides, that the samples were contaminated, and that proper testing was not conducted on the findings..There is just one (major) problem with your theory. "Decay labs" (whatever that is supposed to mean) haven't been studying biological remains for 70 million years. Everything we know about said remains is generated from the remains themselves. If this discovery does alter our understanding of the mineralization of organisms, then paleontology will respond. This will not, however, invalidate the established age of the Earth.



    me
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    It will invalidate the evolutionary theory to a skeptical thinker, a ovius [major] problem to the claim of millions of years.So your saying than that certain and there are many biological remain degraded slower in the past? any evidence for that? better than when kept frozen ever? evidence? no faith, see how your worldview rejects ovius evidence and conclusions and retreats to a faith based position? evidence against billions of years, but your worldview will not allow that conclusion interesting no? see what i mean by no no bias people our worldviews effect everything. This is like me saying well there must have been some unobserved process way out in space that caused the decay rates of isotopes to increase and to decay to were they are today, you would rightly ask for evidence of this and say it was just believed and not observed not part of science. So is evolutionary old ages believed not science.

    Also paleontology is not a person that is able to respond so im not sure who this paleontology is that will respond. There are many that reject evolution on fossils alone.


    you
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    No it wouldn’t. When there is a discrepancy with a theory, it isn’t sound to immediately chuck it out the window. If we did, we would still be in the Stone Ages. There is virtually nothing in science that is without contradiction; even something as seemingly solid as the theory of gravity has issues.
    The paleontological community is fairly united in the fact that the Earth is several billion years old. If it wasn’t, many of them would be out of a job.
    How is that hoping or wishing? Do you propose that we don’t question paleontological findings? Some very prominent paleontologists questioned the validity of these findings, including the head editor and the head researcher of the National Geographic


    me
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    You hope they decayed in a unobservable way to maintain the belief in millions of years and atheism, why do they question? not because evidence but belief and knowledge these things cannot last that long. Also can you find a reference from this year on that? as she has answered all objections.

    Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.



    Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
    <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>




    “Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009







    Cody, G. D. et al. 2011. Molecular signature of chitin-protein complex in Paleozoic arthropods. Geology. 39 (3): 255-258.



    Berg, J. M., J. L. Tymoczko and L. Stryer. 2002. 9.1 Proteases: Facilitating a Difficult Reaction. In Biochemistry, 5th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Fossilized arthropod remains from the Paleozoic, a “310-million-year-old” scorpion cuticle and a “417-million-year-old” scorpion-like arthropod, were found to contain exoskeleton remnants.
    contrary to conventional belief, remains of chitin-protein complex—structural materials containing protein and polysaccharide—are present in abundance.”
    http://carnegiescience.edu/news/unexpected_exoskeleton_remnants_found_paleozoic_fossils

    40 times were soft tissue has been found and reported in evolutionist peer review with refrences
    http://www.icr.org/soft-tissue-list/




    so all evidence indicates these fossils are not as old as claimed

    9] geological features like flat gaps multilayer fossils etc.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    there are multilayer fossils most commonly trees that extend up through many layers of rock strata that are suppose to be millions of years apart, proving they formed rapidly and at same time




    Ager’s illustration—an old print showing fossil trees that appear to be in growth position at Nant Llech in the Swansea Valley, South Wales, UK. The trees are now preserved outside Swansea Museum.




    bent rocks without evidence of deforming showing they formed all while wet and at same time
    , suppose to have been laid down over millions of years.


    no erosion between layers showing long ages of time did not pass in between layer deposition.





    Knife-edge contact between Coconino Sandstone (top) and Hermit Shale (below), Grand Canyon



    you
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The paleontological term for fossils such as this is “polystrate”. Polystrate fossils are widely recognized by the paleontological community and they are fully explained here.


    me
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    please tell me were in the article i missed what wiki i mean the paleontological community said to exspalin this. All i saw was rapid deposition as i said.
    Not to mention you ignored flat gaps and no erosion


    you
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Polystrate fossils are formed because of rapid sedimentation, and can be seen as an extension of the stratum in which they were formed. They don't indicate that consequent stratums aren't as old as the fossils found within them.

    What do you mean by "no erosion" and "flat gaps"?


    me
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I agree, but when they say those layers are separated by millions of years than it disproves that do you not agree?

    no erosion and flat gaps you would have to read my first postalso bent rocks please. there under number 9 after fossil trees, there are even pictures



    you
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    As I said previously, polystrate fossils can be seen as an extension of the stratum from which they originated.
    I didn't mean to ignore this section of your post. I think I began commenting before you finished editing.

    Regarding the "bent rocks" and "no erosion": I'm not sure I understand what you mean, nor what you think these phenomenon indicate and why.

    As far as the "flat gaps": they are created in various ways. Some are created in environments that are unsuitable for the creation of stratum. Some are created because of layers that erode more readily than the layers around it. Some (the Grand Canyon is an excellent example of this), are created by thrust faulting.


    me
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    so exspalin this to me please, it was covered quickly and fossilized corect? than was sticking up in the air untill layers above came down on it millions of years later? I see a major problem with this if this is what your saying.
    You gave no answer as I can see above, flat gaps are common and you cannot avoid deposition or erosion for millions of years you cant leave no evidence for millions of years, thrust faulting leaves evidence for bent rocks and has nothing to do with flat gaps.


    bent rocks I said
    bent rocks without evidence of deforming showing they formed all while wet and at same time, suppose to have been laid down over millions of years.

    they would not remain wet and bendable for millions of years.


    you

    1
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    . A sample petrifies.
    2. The petrified sample is buried beneath material that is softer than it (such as silt, or soil).
    3. The same amount of pressure is exerted upon the petrified sample that is upon the softer material. The softer material is compressed more than the harder petrified sample is.
    4. The strata are built around the petrified sample.

    Does this not make sense?
    Thrust faulting has plenty to do with your “flat gaps”. When one layer is placed onto another, it can cause a discrepancy in the dating of strata (obviously). Did you read my source? You ignored my other comment, by the way, that softer strata can be eroded whereas hard strata remain.
    Are you talking about rocks that slowly arc under heat and pressure, or?


    me
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    kind of but I believe the sediments around were petrified at same time as logs, and your saying that still does not anwser as these are often standing strait up so all that sediment had to acumulate fast to bury the log, yet they are supose to be seperated by thousands and thousands of years even million I believe. Not A question of there formation but evolutionary dating of strata, we both agree they were fossilized fast, In fact many show they were washed into place with sediments

    http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catastr.../dp/0932766943

    Your missing my point, when the layers are first laid down if there is millions of years between that in the next layer as claimed by some, than there would be evidence for erosion depistion etc please source me again i missed i
    no that leaves evidence for that happening, but yes same kind of feature no evidence of heating "millions" of years worth of strata


    so you have a misunderstanding of the implication of these feature, also again no creation sources.


    10] ocean floor sediments
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    sediments are being eroded from the continents by a average of 24 billion tons a low estimate.
    It is estimated that the ocean floor has a average depth of less than 400 meters.

    WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940


    There is only one know way to remove sediments from the ocean floor by subduction, it is estimated that about 1 billion tons per year of sediments are subducted.


    WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940


    The other 23 tons accumulate at the ocean bottom, at that rate the sediments would have accumulated in just about 12 million years. According to evolution these processes have been acuring for 3 billion years.


    you
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    That’s not a formula.

    And again, remember what I said about static formulae; remember my example about average snowfall? Same here.


    me
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This works only if you dont understand that 80 is more than 40,do you believe 80 is more than 40? and if that keeps happening you'll end up with what? 0 no 40 plus 40 etc


    how in the hel% is it not a formula? your argument as degreaded into denying simple math



    so you did not really even attempt a response.


    so all my dates stand unrefuted, you made sense of human population numbers for your view but non other, I may consider changing that for a new one next debate, though it is still evidence for a young human population. also genetically would be very tough for you i think.


    Also I saw no creation sources for these young earth dates so know what do you have left? change topic?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post

    1. You violated several of our opening rules in every single one of your posts.
    2. You continued to parrot creationism articles.
    read above on creation articles, you must ignore all my logical points to make this claim and as I showed the topic of young earth dates there all evolutionist sources


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I have responded to your points in full, but I am going to reserve them until you are able to counter the points below. No more advertising creationism for you until you can invalidate "evolutionism". I should have done this earlier; allowing you to dictate the terms of this debate has cost me a lot of time/IQ points.
    you had your chance to attack and failed so lets see you prove a old earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    It should be quite clear. We have bacterial DNA, therefore we inherited that from bacteria. Doing so would take longer than 10,000 years, based on our current understanding of evolution.
    You know exactly what I'm talking about here. 223/30,000 human genomes are from bacterial DNA.

    we have bacteria dna? show me, we have sequences similar yes so what that only proves if you already asume and belive evolution this can be also evidence for a common desighner. and agin your lack of knowledge of bibolgy makes me think you dont want this sister saying we have multiple genomes, I think you mean genes.
    This is no evidence you assume evolution did it so it must have taken millions of years so the earth is millions of years old lol that logic gets you every time.

    My house is blue
    it would take me 3 days to paint my house
    therefore i must have painted my house blue and it took me 3 days

    could not have someone else painted my house? a team of painters and taken a few hours? or my wife taken weeks? is my house really blue? or do I have on a shade of blue glasses [worldview]

    you seem to think evolution is possible mathematically answer me this

    one cell needs a minimum of 400 different proteins to make the machines needed for life.

    Just one of these essential machines rna polymerase [see www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/3107/lectures/topicks/rnap- bacterial. Html.
    One protein component of machine less than 10% of total machine , that protein is 329 amino acids in length, the chance of getting that one protein by random chance is 1/20 times 1/20 times 1/20 etc is a probability of 1 in 10 to the 428 power
    there are only 10 to the 80th power of atoms in the universe.
    10 to the 18th power is the amount of seconds in the supposed evolutionary history of the universe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Nice strawman. I am talking about genetic similarities between bacteria and humans. I said nothing of our other genetic ancestories (though I could and would defend them, if I cared to). Address the point, don't dodge. Why do I specifically want you to address this point? Because your creationists articles don't say jack about them; you are going to have to create an original counter-argument.

    lol, please give source material and this does directly respond, it takes the same argument from a common exsaple, you gave no source so I had to use a common exsaple of the same kind of arguments, im not doing anything.
    This is such a illogical terrible argument i cant believe you think you have something here that I would be scared of


    sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60%
    march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers

    sea sponges share 70% with humans
    www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010

    you cant get around the circular reasoning of this as well

    "When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.


    or that creation can make sense of it

    the proof evolutionist need is organism upward change change not similarities
    If similarity proves common ans-ester clouds 100% water, water melon 97% the missing link is jellyfish 98%
    the honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts they are very similar , did they both evolve from a skateboard or was the same guy making them both for similar purposes?
    If there were a common designater you would aspect similarities like chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream would have similar ingredients than cake.
    god uses similarity's in creation to show one creator , animals have to have same basic biochemistry so we can eat.
    Also evolutionist have no problem distorting evidence to support there common ancestor idea in textbooks to help make sure the kids believe their religion
    https://store.creation.com/us/produc...d18eac9c1c24a8


    homologous structures come from different genes and some genes produce different structures showing common designer not ancestor
    p95 gretest hoax on earth
    http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php

    you will not be able to respond to these facts you will have to deny to try to keep this terrible argument alive.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    You claim to appreciate and understand both sides of the argument, yet you don't even understand something as basic as the accepted age of the Earth? Do you not have access to Google? Stop embarassing yourself.

    The Earth is ~4.54 billion years old.

    lol I am referring to the origin of the universe as your argument is distant t starlight from billions of light years away please stop embarrassing yourself, just tell me you believe it is 13 billion or older so I can respond.
    Last edited by total relism; October 01, 2011 at 05:23 AM.


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









  15. #15
    Ancient Aliens's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Incagualchepec, Guatemala
    Posts
    3,215

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Why the would you, after I explicitly told you that you are wasting my time with gigantic responses, purposefully extend this post as much as was possible for you by (for some reason) giving me a recap? As If I haven't had to experience that in full already. I seem to be the only one between the two of us who is actually reading the others posts, articles, and other sources in their entirety, so this part was particularly insulting.

    But I am going to maintain the tone I've set in my previous post and ignore a majority of this post, for reasons I gave earlier. That isn't to say that I wasn't tempted to comment, however. You are like the Mara of stupidity, tempting learned Buddhas to respond to your drivel.


    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    First i was thinking the same thing we got alittle off topic no? but I would not call it bludgeon you into submission when all I did was respond to everything you said it was alot to respond to.
    Uh, no. I allowed you to open, and you posted 10 points with various creationist articles attached. I had to respond to each of them. Your opening post was several pages long.


    Also I saw no creation sources for these young earth dates so know what do you have left? change topic?


    Let's be honest here. I gave you more than enough time to provide compelling evidence. I refuted everything you posted, to which you responded with various forms of creationist articles, smilies, repetition, and circular logic. I'm not going to subject myself to that any longer. If you are unable to disprove the proposed age of the Earth, then we are (thankfully) done.



    we have bacteria dna? show me, we have sequences similar yes so what that only proves if you already asume and belive evolution this can be also evidence for a common desighner.
    Why would a designer leave bacterial DNA in our genetic code? Your argument makes absolutely no sense.


    This is no evidence you assume evolution did it so it must have taken millions of years so the earth is millions of years old lol that logic gets you every time.
    We have contemporary examples of genetic mutations. When we compare the rate at which these mutations occur, we can gather that the genetic mutations necessary for bacterium to evolve into humans (by whatever means, I don't really give a how much banana/monkey/toaster DNA we have) would take billions of years.


    you seem to think evolution is possible mathematically answer me this

    one cell needs a minimum of 400 different proteins to make the machines needed for life.
    Just one of these essential machines rna polymerase [see www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/3107/lectures/topicks/rnap- bacterial. Html.
    One protein component of machine less than 10% of total machine , that protein is 329 amino acids in length, the chance of getting that one protein by random chance is 1/20 times 1/20 times 1/20 etc is a probability of 1 in 10 to the 428 power
    there are only 10 to the 80th power of atoms in the universe.
    10 to the 18th power is the amount of seconds in the supposed evolutionary history of the universe.
    Irrelevant, stop dodging.


    lol, please give source material and this does directly respond, it takes the same argument from a common exsaple, you gave no source so I had to use a common exsaple of the same kind of arguments, im not doing anything.
    I already provided you with a source on the previous statement. Let me guess, you opted not to click it and read it in it's entirety, as I regrettably did with your various sources?


    This is such a illogical terrible argument i cant believe you think you have something here that I would be scared of


    sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60%
    march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers

    sea sponges share 70% with humans
    www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010

    you cant get around the circular reasoning of this as well

    "When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.


    or that creation can make sense of it

    the proof evolutionist need is organism upward change change not similarities
    If similarity proves common ans-ester clouds 100% water, water melon 97% the missing link is jellyfish 98%
    the honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts they are very similar , did they both evolve from a skateboard or was the same guy making them both for similar purposes?
    If there were a common designater you would aspect similarities like chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream would have similar ingredients than cake.
    god uses similarity's in creation to show one creator , animals have to have same basic biochemistry so we can eat.
    Also evolutionist have no problem distorting evidence to support there common ancestor idea in textbooks to help make sure the kids believe their religion
    https://store.creation.com/us/produc...d18eac9c1c24a8


    homologous structures come from different genes and some genes produce different structures showing common designer not ancestor
    p95 gretest hoax on earth
    http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php

    you will not be able to respond to these facts you will have to deny to try to keep this terrible argument alive.
    And you continue to talk about genetic similarities with other species. We are talking specifically about bacterium. You still have yet to address my original point. Let's see how you are doing with the age of light in the universe.


    lol I am referring to the origin of the universe as your argument is distant t starlight from billions of light years away please stop embarrassing yourself, just tell me you believe it is 13 billion or older so I can respond.
    Oh?

    I would love to answer this [best evidence for old earth] as I have before on this forum, but I have to ask one question first how old do you believe the earth to be? in the range of 13-20 billion? less more? you may think this has nothing to do with my response to distant star light, but it does with one of the points ill be making. So I just need your statement on it please.
    Seems like you are asking me about the age of the Earth...

    Anyhow, this is irrelevant, as is your future point, because, as the thread title suggests, we are discussing the age of the Earth. You really cannot control your desire to meander off topic and attack strawmen, can you?

  16. #16

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Why the would you, after I explicitly told you that you are wasting my time with gigantic responses, purposefully extend this post as much as was possible for you by (for some reason) giving me a recap? As If I haven't had to experience that in full already. I seem to be the only one between the two of us who is actually reading the others posts, articles, and other sources in their entirety, so this part was particularly insulting.
    I did so because my previous debates, and you have started doing this as well, witch is why I recapped them all was to easily refer to, is first they debate facts [some do] than when that fails they go after source [a logical fallacy ad hominem I have also shown many more logic problems with this you must refuse to answer to keep this line of false argumentation going, than finally denial i did refute what you said etc.. I know these last two were coming witch is why I organized everything to easily refer to I know im a jerk.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    But I am going to maintain the tone I've set in my previous post and ignore a majority of this post, for reasons I gave earlier. That isn't to say that I wasn't tempted to comment, however. You are like the Mara of stupidity, tempting learned Buddhas to respond to your drivel.

    I do want to mention how when you were willing to debate facts in the beginning of this debate how I kept complimenting you and saying how much fun this was you were fast becoming my fav person on this forum. Oh how things change

    but I did just get a cool email you might like this video of inside the cell from harvard only about 1 min long, consider as gift to reconcile this relationship maybe.....

    Biovision harvard
    http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Uh, no. I allowed you to open, and you posted 10 points with various creationist articles attached. I had to respond to each of them. Your opening post was several pages long.

    I gave 10 evidence in very short description for a young earth, I could have given 100, i thought that was not very long at all, and again logical fallacy ad hominem, from know on i will post all the illogical problems with you atacking creation sources and all the stuff you must ignore to keep this illogical line or argument going,as well as re posting all my arguments in evolutionary only sources



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Let's be honest here. I gave you more than enough time to provide compelling evidence. I refuted everything you posted, to which you responded with various forms of creationist articles, smilies, repetition, and circular logic. I'm not going to subject myself to that any longer. If you are unable to disprove the proposed age of the Earth, then we are (thankfully) done.

    I do enjoy this but also cant help but notice you give no exsaples of this, I ask you to give me one exspale of witch young earth date you refuted, why, and why my counter response does not anwser your claim. Again I know this was coming denial its the fourth step of all my debates never back up with evidence just claim there right that is why i organized everything. I know it was coming this will make it very easy for me.
    But yes if you truly believe some unobserved process that supposedly adds a unidentified amount of rock to the surface with no reference to this ever taking place and you admitting takes "millions" of years- refutes the fact that the total above land mass in the world would erode to sea by than answers the problem than there is nothing more I can do.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Why would a designer leave bacterial DNA in our genetic code? Your argument makes absolutely no sense.
    he dident that is my point, read last post on similarities.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    We have contemporary examples of genetic mutations. When we compare the rate at which these mutations occur, we can gather that the genetic mutations necessary for bacterium to evolve into humans (by whatever means, I don't really give a how much banana/monkey/toaster DNA we have) would take billions of years.

    Irrelevant, stop dodging.

    still not getting it, your assuming that we evolved, you notice big differences, and say if we evolved than it must have taken billions of years to evolve so the earth is billions of years old.

    It would take me 10 hours to paint my house
    my house is painted so it must have taken me 10 hours

    did i even paint my house? or did someone else? did it take 10 hours?

    and this is very relevant as you trying to say in billions of years bacteria could evolve randomly into a human, yet that is not enough time to produce one protein


    you seem to think evolution is possible mathematically answer me this

    one cell needs a minimum of 400 different proteins to make the machines needed for life.
    Just one of these essential machines rna polymerase [see www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/3107/lectures/topicks/rnap- bacterial. Html.
    One protein component of machine less than 10% of total machine , that protein is 329 amino acids in length, the chance of getting that one protein by random chance is 1/20 times 1/20 times 1/20 etc is a probability of 1 in 10 to the 428 power
    there are only 10 to the 80th power of atoms in the universe.
    10 to the 18th power is the amount of seconds in the supposed evolutionary history of the universe.




    not to mention there is no evidence for upward complexity mutations that would be needed for this non observed fairy tale to be credible.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I already provided you with a source on the previous statement. Let me guess, you opted not to click it and read it in it's entirety, as I regrettably did with your various sources?

    Im sorry im still not seeing it please re post a link.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    And you continue to talk about genetic similarities with other species. We are talking specifically about bacterium. You still have yet to address my original point. Let's see how you are doing with the age of light in the universe.

    This has to do with all similarities as its the same argument



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post

    Seems like you are asking me about the age of the Earth...

    Anyhow, this is irrelevant, as is your future point, because, as the thread title suggests, we are discussing the age of the Earth. You really cannot control your desire to meander off topic and attack strawmen, can you?

    than we have no need to discus distant starlight, usually if you ever watch any debates debates over the age of the earth can mean universe earth etc. seriously just tell me you think the universe is at least 13 billion years old this is getting ridicules. Or keep it to the earth I guess.
    Last edited by total relism; October 02, 2011 at 02:00 PM.


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









  17. #17
    Ancient Aliens's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Incagualchepec, Guatemala
    Posts
    3,215

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    I did so because my previous debates, and you have started doing this as well, witch is why I recapped them all was to easily refer to, is first they debate facts [some do] than when that fails they go after source [a logical fallacy ad hominem I have also shown many more logic problems with this you must refuse to answer to keep this line of false argumentation going, than finally denial i did refute what you said etc.. I know these last two were coming witch is why I organized everything to easily refer to I know im a jerk.

    I do want to mention how when you were willing to debate facts in the beginning of this debate how I kept complimenting you and saying how much fun this was you were fast becoming my fav person on this forum. Oh how things change

    but I did just get a cool email you might like this video of inside the cell from harvard only about 1 min long, consider as gift to reconcile this relationship maybe.....

    Biovision harvard
    http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/
    I guess is the post where I have to listen to you use the phrase "ad hominem" multiple times because you just learned it and are anxious to use it, even if your use of the phrase is incorrect. Fantastic.

    I wasn't attacking the authors of those articles, was I? I was questioning the validity of those articles, and rightfully so, as I proved their invalidity on multiple occasions.


    I gave 10 evidence in very short description for a young earth, I could have given 100, i thought that was not very long at all, and again logical fallacy ad hominem, from know on i will post all the illogical problems with you atacking creation sources and all the stuff you must ignore to keep this illogical line or argument going,as well as re posting all my arguments in evolutionary only sources
    I'm sorry, but 6 pages of text is not short. Reading through your posts, and anyone can attest to this, is difficult for a number of reasons. How is this ad hominem, by the way? Do you think I am attacking your credibility by mentioning the fact that I don't have the time or the patience to read through several pages worth of text?


    I do enjoy this but also cant help but notice you give no exsaples of this, I ask you to give me one exspale of witch young earth date you refuted, why, and why my counter response does not anwser your claim. Again I know this was coming denial its the fourth step of all my debates never back up with evidence just claim there right that is why i organized everything. I know it was coming this will make it very easy for me.
    But yes if you truly believe some unobserved process that supposedly adds a unidentified amount of rock to the surface with no reference to this ever taking place and you admitting takes "millions" of years- refutes the fact that the total above land mass in the world would erode to sea by than answers the problem than there is nothing more I can do.
    I already told you, we will discuss the previous post in its entirety if you can disprove my points below.


    he dident that is my point, read last post on similarities.
    He didn't...what? Put bacterial DNA in our DNA? it is most certainly there.

    still not getting it, your assuming that we evolved, you notice big differences, and say if we evolved than it must have taken billions of years to evolve so the earth is billions of years old.

    It would take me 10 hours to paint my house
    my house is painted so it must have taken me 10 hours

    did i even paint my house? or did someone else? did it take 10 hours?

    and this is very relevant as you trying to say in billions of years bacteria could evolve randomly into a human, yet that is not enough time to produce one protein
    Ok. If we didn't gain the bacterial DNA through the evolutive process, then from where did it originate and why?


    you seem to think evolution is possible mathematically answer me this

    one cell needs a minimum of 400 different proteins to make the machines needed for life.
    Just one of these essential machines rna polymerase [see www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/3107/lectures/topicks/rnap- bacterial. Html.
    One protein component of machine less than 10% of total machine , that protein is 329 amino acids in length, the chance of getting that one protein by random chance is 1/20 times 1/20 times 1/20 etc is a probability of 1 in 10 to the 428 power
    there are only 10 to the 80th power of atoms in the universe.
    10 to the 18th power is the amount of seconds in the supposed evolutionary history of the universe.


    not to mention there is no evidence for upward complexity mutations that would be needed for this non observed fairy tale to be credible.
    I just want to make you aware of the fact that this is the second time you have posted this. Same answer as last time.

    This has to do with all similarities as its the same argument
    No, as a matter of fact, it's not. I am refering to bacterial DNA specifically. That's the issue with your debating as I see it. When you are unable to draw from creationist sources, you are unable to properly refute a statement. You are desperately trying to tie this back to "missing links" and "our genetic similarities with shoes" because you want to quote bomb me using creationist articles. It isn't going to happen, so answer the previous point already.


    than we have no need to discus distant starlight, usually if you ever watch any debates debates over the age of the earth can mean universe earth etc. seriously just tell me you think the universe is at least 13 billion years old this is getting ridicules. Or keep it to the earth I guess.
    No need for bolded, oversized text, I can read just fine thank you. And no, I don't have to tell you how old I think the universe is. That is besides the point. All you need to know is that the light from specific sources originated several billion light years away. I am avoiding listing the age of the universe because I am purposefully preventing you from using that article that you are dying to use, even though I can most likely refute it in it's entirety. I guess that makes me the jerk, eh?
    Last edited by Ancient Aliens; October 02, 2011 at 09:48 PM.

  18. #18

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    This has gone far off topic, very little said in last reply on topic. I dont care a whole lot ill debate anything about creation vs evolution, however something has come up and I wish to ask for a week off before next post unless you can respond by tonight or tomorrow morning maybe I can respond, does that sound ok with you?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I guess is the post where I have to listen to you use the phrase "ad hominem" multiple times because you just learned it and are anxious to use it, even if your use of the phrase is incorrect. Fantastic.

    I wasn't attacking the authors of those articles, was I? I was questioning the validity of those articles, and rightfully so, as I proved their invalidity on multiple occasions.

    you know alot about someone who you have never met, however if you read my debate with j phillip i believe it was, I pointed this one and many others out, I hapen to know a thing or two of logic and worldviews, I just have not spent the time to point out all your logical fallacies and there are many, know that the post are being shortened im starting to do so.

    according to your best source
    An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man", "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it

    this is what your doing attacking a source from creationist because they believe creation.

    you than claim you showed them invalid,again as I said this is step 4 denial, this is why it has been 2 times already were you have made the statement, I refuted so and so without backing it up with one exspale, this is why i collected all the responces and counter responces on post number 14.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I'm sorry, but 6 pages of text is not short. Reading through your posts, and anyone can attest to this, is difficult for a number of reasons. How is this ad hominem, by the way? Do you think I am attacking your credibility by mentioning the fact that I don't have the time or the patience to read through several pages worth of text?

    you claimed creation sources on them as unreliable, yet all info originated from evolutionary journals, and we were talking of my first post witch was not long at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    He didn't...what? Put bacterial DNA in our DNA? it is most certainly there.
    what is bacteria dna? you give no source, its not like our dna has a label that says hi im from a bacteria millions of years ago, there is dna true the only reason you believe its bacteria dna is because you believe we evolved from bacteria, again read my responce to similarity in dna, this has nothing to do with age of earth just assuming common decent, than you have to ignore all the points I make to keep the faith. Similarities we observe are better explained by common desighner.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Ok. If we didn't gain the bacterial DNA through the evolutive process, then from where did it originate and why?

    there is only one other possibility, it either evolved or it was......created there is no other possibility.




    either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a creator. Its strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second”
    prof John Lennox fellow of mathimaticks and philosophy of science oxford university 2009





    "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not . . If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I just want to make you aware of the fact that this is the second time you have posted this. Same answer as last time.
    I shall do the same

    and this is very relevant as you trying to say in billions of years bacteria could evolve randomly into a human, yet that is not enough time to produce one protein

    you seem to think evolution is possible mathematically answer me this

    one cell needs a minimum of 400 different proteins to make the machines needed for life.
    Just one of these essential machines rna polymerase [see www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/3107/lectures/topicks/rnap- bacterial. Html.
    One protein component of machine less than 10% of total machine , that protein is 329 amino acids in length, the chance of getting that one protein by random chance is 1/20 times 1/20 times 1/20 etc is a probability of 1 in 10 to the 428 power
    there are only 10 to the 80th power of atoms in the universe.
    10 to the 18th power is the amount of seconds in the supposed evolutionary history of the universe.


    not to mention there is no evidence for upward complexity mutations that would be needed for this non observed fairy tale to be credible.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    No, as a matter of fact, it's not. I am refering to bacterial DNA specifically. That's the issue with your debating as I see it. When you are unable to draw from creationist sources, you are unable to properly refute a statement. You are desperately trying to tie this back to "missing links" and "our genetic similarities with shoes" because you want to quote bomb me using creationist articles. It isn't going to happen, so answer the previous point already.
    first i post off websites to make data available to disucess and easy way of doing so why not? second do you really think there is no answer to you "chalenge" you think you have some miracle evidence here its amazing to me to truly believe you think you do.

    creation ministries
    http://creation.com/refuting-evoluti...ommon-ancestry

    check any of the creation websites you will find a answer to this not to mention actually watch a debate once in awhile.

    there is not a creation site out there that will not have some kind of response to this claim, i have watched hundreds of hours of creation vs evolution debates and you think your the first to bring this up


    I have answered it a few times, your lack of knowledge [and references] shows alot here, by not knowing what your argument really is, it is based on similarity in genetic code, not like there is little genes running around saying im from bacteria
    what is bacteria dna? dna in bacteria ok, so your saying humans have similar dna strands, ok I agree they prably do, as do all organism created by the same god.

    Your argument goes something like this

    bat
    bacteria

    see the letters ba is in both bat and bacteria and in the same order, that means the english language was not created by some unobserved mystical intelligence, it evolved from morse code or a simplier language

    look more evidence

    batter
    base

    see you can see the clear adaptation of the words they slowly evolved but still show a common ancestor to the original word bat.


    notice when i first posted i said this

    you will not be able to respond to these facts you will have to deny to try to keep this terrible argument alive.


    sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60%
    march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers

    sea sponges share 70% with humans
    www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010

    you cant get around the circular reasoning of this as well

    "When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.


    or that creation can make sense of it

    the proof evolutionist need is organism upward change change not similarities
    If similarity proves common ans-ester clouds 100% water, water melon 97% the missing link is jellyfish 98%
    the honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts they are very similar , did they both evolve from a skateboard or was the same guy making them both for similar purposes?

    If there were a common designer, you would aspect similarities like chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream would have similar ingredients than cake.
    god uses similarity's in creation to show one creator , animals have to have same basic biochemistry so we can eat.
    Also evolutionist have no problem distorting evidence to support there common ancestor idea in textbooks to help make sure the kids believe their religion
    https://store.creation.com/us/produc...d18eac9c1c24a8


    homologous structures come from different genes and some genes produce different structures showing common designer not ancestor
    p95 greatest hoax on earth
    http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php
    check original source evolutionist source

    you will not be able to respond to these facts you will have to deny to try to keep this terrible argument alive.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    No need for bolded, oversized text, I can read just fine thank you. And no, I don't have to tell you how old I think the universe is. That is besides the point. All you need to know is that the light from specific sources originated several billion light years away. I am avoiding listing the age of the universe because I am purposefully preventing you from using that article that you are dying to use, even though I can most likely refute it in it's entirety. I guess that makes me the jerk, eh?

    sorry i just hope you might respond if i put them in bold, I want you to be a jerk, I want you to respond I dont want you to make claims without backing them up or ignoring counter responses, The title of the debate is thousands or billions so you have to support billions you already suport 4.5 earth correct? and I thought this was age of earth to you no? than why does were light orginates matter? only earth so please be specific here, allow this debate to include the whole universe and defend billions of years old universe.
    I could have responded here to distant starlight but seeing as i can't post in a week or so I dont want you to get away thinking you refuted my post in your response im a jerk I know.
    Last edited by total relism; October 03, 2011 at 12:46 PM.


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









  19. #19
    Ancient Aliens's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Incagualchepec, Guatemala
    Posts
    3,215

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    This has gone far off topic, very little said in last reply on topic. I dont care a whole lot ill debate anything about creation vs evolution, however something has come up and I wish to ask for a week off before next post unless you can respond by tonight or tomorrow morning maybe I can respond, does that sound ok with you?
    That's fine.


    this is what your doing attacking a source from creationist because they believe creation.
    No. I am attacking a source because their figures are off and their conclusions aren't logically sound.


    you claimed creation sources on them as unreliable, yet all info originated from evolutionary journals, and we were talking of my first post witch was not long at all.
    That's because the majority of your articles quoted "evolutionary journals" incontextually.


    what is bacteria dna? you give no source, its not like our dna has a label that says hi im from a bacteria millions of years ago, there is dna true the only reason you believe its bacteria dna is because you believe we evolved from bacteria, again read my responce to similarity in dna, this has nothing to do with age of earth just assuming common decent, than you have to ignore all the points I make to keep the faith. Similarities we observe are better explained by common desighner.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11335018

    And how are they better explained by a common designer, exactly?


    there is only one other possibility, it either evolved or it was......created there is no other possibility.
    And we have come full circle. Why would a creator include exclusively bacterial genes in human DNA?


    ok I agree they prably do, as do all organism created by the same god.
    Again, why would a god include bacterial genes in human DNA?


    sorry i just hope you might respond if i put them in bold, I want you to be a jerk, I want you to respond I dont want you to make claims without backing them up or ignoring counter responses, The title of the debate is thousands or billions so you have to support billions you already suport 4.5 earth correct? and I thought this was age of earth to you no? than why does were light orginates matter? only earth so please be specific here, allow this debate to include the whole universe and defend billions of years old universe.
    I could have responded here to distant starlight but seeing as i can't post in a week or so I dont want you to get away thinking you refuted my post in your response im a jerk I know.
    I had a hard time fully comprehending this post, and you seem to be stalling. Why don't you just answer the original question: Why do we receive light that predates your proposed date for the creation of the universe (6,000 years ago)?

  20. #20

    Default Re: age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

    Hey aliens seems like it has been forever, I gotta say this has dropped on my to do list for awhile, Jehovah witnesses came knocking on my door I always wanted to find out what they believe and debate them, I have had 3v1 discussion/debates [much better odds than creation vs evolution I get so seems easy] and they will be coming over looks to be weekly for awhile, so all my time has been spent lerning about there beliefs how to refute them etc. This is looking to be the easiest "religion" to refute that I have studied.
    So my post from know on will have at least days in between and week here and there if that is ok, I really am interested in learning about those guys, I always wanted them to come knocking on my door, they have alredy had to go get there big guns,as the people could not anwser my questions so they get guys from even over state over the boarder to come debate with me 3v1 right know im kicking ass

    keeping our replies short will really help agree with that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    That's fine.

    No. I am attacking a source because their figures are off and their conclusions aren't logically sound.

    stage 4 as I said this is 4th time already since I showed the stages, make claims with out examples. If your refering to the erosion as I said you misread one very important peace of information. That is why your conclusions are wrong, yet you did not respond to them.



    stage 4 give examples please. claims should be backed by examples.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11335018

    And how are they better explained by a common designer, exactly?
    read my previous 3 responses to why design exspalins better, so here is what all I got from your source.

    The initial analysis of the human genome draft sequence reveals that our 'book of life' is multi-authored. A small but significant proportion of our genes owes their heritage not to antecedent eukaryotes but instead to bacteria. The publicly funded Human Genome Project study indicates that about 0.5% of all human genes were copied into the genome from bacterial sources. Detailed sequence analyses point to these 'horizontal gene transfer' events having occurred relatively recently. So how did the human 'book of life' evolve to be a chimaera, part animal and part bacterium? And what was the probable evolutionary impact of such gene plagiarism?


    so this has nothing to do with the age of earth or age of anything this is a great example of why you should stay away from biology, assuming this did happen [no idea how they determined this] this is not evidence for evolution or age of anything , as your own sourse said it happened recently [they believe] there is nothing in the creation model that says this cannot happen or a young earth.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    And we have come full circle. Why would a creator include exclusively bacterial genes in human DNA?
    he dident actually take the time to read my responses please.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    Again, why would a god include bacterial genes in human DNA?
    he dident,again 5th time maybe 6 these gens if they were transmitted from bacteria were not original to the human as your own source says. read your own source mate.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ancient Aliens View Post
    I had a hard time fully comprehending this post, and you seem to be stalling. Why don't you just answer the original question: Why do we receive light that predates your proposed date for the creation of the universe (6,000 years ago)?


    I was stalling, I hinted very strongly sorry thought i was being funny.


    First there are many indicators from astronomy that indicate a young universe, such as comets that you ignore. than this is a self refuting argument, if you say you cant believe in a young universe because of this, or I can turn it right back on you as you said the universe is billions of years old.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
    horizon problem for old universe believers


    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/Distant-Starlight/distant-starlightfree online to watch about distant starlight. and it also goes into detail about the horizon problem for old universe believers



    but there are many possible ways of exspalining this in a young universe here are a few common ones.


    http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/Distant-Starlight/distant-starlightfree online to watch about distant starlight. and it also goes into detail about the horizon problem for old universe believers

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention from dr jason lisle technical

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight
    laymans anwsers mag vol6 no 1 2011 p68-71

    here are 5 more
    http://creation.com/a-new-cosmology-solution-to-the-starlight-travel-time-problem

    https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=998HYPERLINK "https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=998&osCsid=90b3ca0f8baa89b3480fad061c12e4a2"&HYPERLINK "https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=998&osCsid=90b3ca0f8baa89b3480fad061c12e4a2"osCsid=90b3ca0f8baa89b3480fad061c12e4a2 possible answer
    https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?sku=30-9-525 another

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Taking-Back-Astronomy,4574,224.aspx


    new creation cosmology part one
    http://www.icr.org/article/5686/
    http://www.icr.org/article/5830/ part 2
    http://www.icr.org/article/5870/ part 3



    light in transit distant starlight
    54–59 Mature creation and seeing distant starlight
    Viewpoint by Don B. DeYoung

    JOC Volume 24, Issue 3
    Published December 2010

    http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-243


    there are 2 more different distant starlight models in peer review right know by creationist the others in crsq I will post when available.


    I am in contact with
    http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati

    he will respond to this one if you have questions
    http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf


    also i can contact both
    http://creation.com/dr-donald-deyoung
    and
    http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv
    on theres

    THis is not my subject but I can email questions attacks etc
    Last edited by total relism; October 09, 2011 at 01:49 PM.


    “I am in fact, a hobbit in all but size”― J.R.R. Tolkien









Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •