Replies

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? That question has been continuously asked of g3k since post 1081, and in response we get nothing but tap-dancing. Observe this post, truly a classic. One howler after another:

Actually it is atheits [sic] that cannot disprove God by scientific means:¹ abiogenesis has been proven scientifically impossible,² the Universe has been shown to be intelligently designed,³ the development of a human from conception to birth is not random but a program which cannot be stochastically changed.⁴ It is you and your fellow atheists that have to disprove God⁵ and you have nothing but lame rhetoric to do it with.
1241 posted on 12/28/2002 11:49 PM EST by gore3000

Footnotes:
1. That was in response to a point I made to Tribune7, about whether the "God hypothesis" was essential to scientific work, and I said that Trib7 had the burden of proof. He does; and g3k doesn't understand this.
2. This nonsense keeps getting repeated even after I've posted links to the Pasteur Institute in Paris, showing that ol' Louis Pasteur was merely working on the problem of food spoilation, and he showed that food had to be exposed to airborne bacteria in order to develop mold. Certain cretaionists have blown this into a fantasy proof of one of their fantasy dogmas.
3. Nonsense.
4. Who said it was random?
5. Another clear demonstration of ignorance regarding the burden of proof. And a "wildly elliptical" assumption that I'm an atheist.

Now then, that was an amusing post to deal with. But it's all quite beside the point. Do not be distracted. Don't be tempted into any flame wars which will provide an excuse to get this thread pulled. Permit no diversions! Stay the course! We want an answer: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? That question has been continuously asked of g3k since post 1081,

It has not been answered because it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is scientifically true or not. However the following posts are relevant and have gone totally unrefuted. This proves your atheistic religion (aka evolution) to be totally false and totally unscienitific:

Neither you nor any evolutionists has ever given proof that a single species has transformed itself into another more complex species. If I am wrong, let's see the proof. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?

There are many. The bacterial flagellum is one. The program by which a single cell at conception turns into a 100 trillion cells at the time of birth - with every single cell of the exactly proper kind in the exactly proper place is another. There are many more which have been scientifically proven, but these two should keep you busy for a while.
988 posted on 12/23/2002 7:07 AM PST by gore3000

'Gradual loss of egg laying' is more easily said than done. You must remember that the you need to provide nutrition to the developing organism throughout its development - as well as after the birth until it can feed itself. To say that all these changes can occur simultaneously is totally ludicrous and you have disproven nothing. Let's see an article describing how this change occurred in detail. Can you find any? I doubt it because this is one of the things evolutionists never speak of.
989 posted on 12/23/2002 7:14 AM PST by gore3000

And where did you debunk the flagellum besides in your own mind?

As to the eye spot, your article only says that because it happened more than once then therefore the eye spot could have occurred. It is not a refutation of the complex mechanism required for an eye spot.

BTW - a blog from Don Lindsay is proof of absolutely nothing. The guy cannot even give references for his nonsense.
991 posted on 12/23/2002 7:28 AM PST by gore3000

Another clear demonstration of ignorance regarding the burden of proof. And a "wildly elliptical" assumption that I'm an atheist.

You certainly are an atheist. For one thing your favorite philosophy is Objectivism which denies God. In addition your posts here are ample proof of your atheism (as well as of your dishonesty). In fact, this attack on me, in which you do not even have the honesty to address it to me, shows your utter dishonesty. Any time you wish to discuss whether you are an atheist or not, just let me know. We have done it already so we both know what the result will be so I am sure that you will decline to discuss it.

This nonsense keeps getting repeated even after I've posted links to the Pasteur Institute in Paris, showing that ol' Louis Pasteur was merely working on the problem of food spoilation, and he showed that food had to be exposed to airborne bacteria in order to develop mold. Certain cretaionists have blown this into a fantasy proof of one of their fantasy dogmas.

See post#1279 to B.Babbitt above. This has been posted on this thread before. You have seen it several times. The proof against abiogenesis involves far more than Pasteur's experiment - although that in itself is strong proof against abiogenesis. You dishonestly ignore the proof given to you and just keep repeating garbage. Disprove my post# 1279, then you can say it is nonsense. Until you disprove it, your claims that abiogenesis may be true are an absolute lie - just like almost everything you say.

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Obviously older than the 6000 years which Bishop Usher deduced from the old testament but, in all likelihood, nowhere remotely close to the 4 billion year figure which atheist scientists put out.

The various systems of dating geological forms appear to be based on nothing much more than belief systems and circular reasoning and it is now known that the Mount St. Helens volcano has produced varves and other "geological evidence" which according to theory should have taken many thousands of years to produce.

One interesting comment which I've seen on an FR posting and saved, apparently from a good mathematician, is the following:

Lord Kelvin stopped Darwinism dead in its tracks when he made an irrefutable thermodynamic calculation that at the rate which the Earth is cooling off (and heat is being conducted from the interior to the surface and then radiated into space) the Earth could not possibly be more than 2 to 20 million years old. This really put "the fear of God" into the staunchest Darwinists for a while.
But when radioactivity was discovered, the uniformitarians rejoiced because they had found a "new" source of heat to prolong the Earth's life-span. But they _failed_ to repeat Kelvin's calculation, because the results would have been too embarrassing. I once found in a geology text-book an account of Kelvin's calculation, which (using Fourier transform solution) I modernized by incuding on the right-hand side of the equation as a "source" of energy inside the Earth the _maximal_ modern estimates of abundance of radioactive materials inside the Earth (which I got from publications by famed Princeton physicist Dicke). Part of the reason that I was fired from BYU is that I circulated a copy of my paper showing that with inclusion of the heat sources which Lord Kelvin had not known about, the _MAXIMAL_ age of the Earth gets revised upwards from his 20 Million years to only about 200 Million years (a far cry from the billions proclaimed by uniformitarian geologists who are about to experience a sudden fall when my friends start to market cheap Radio-Shack type gadgets by means of which high-school labs & home workshop hobbyists can cause Uranium and Thorium to do in 20 minutes what the Establishment claims would take "45 billion years"!).

It sounds kind of like you can't even talk about this kind of stuff in American Academia yet. If that's the case, then Ohio and other states are not only going in the right direction, but in a NECESSARY direction. It sounds like the evolutionists have pretty much stifled debate and discussion in academia.