Replies

"ID is nonsense that is a pipsqueak trying to pick a fight with Superman as science. ID makes Christians look stupid."

What makes Christians look stupid is:

Believing part of the scriptures and not all of them.
Twisting scriptures to avoid a plain and clear meaning.
Denying the power of God.
Believing the conclusions and reasoning of man over what God has told us.
Ignoring prophecy like 2 Peter 3, that said we would forget the flood and creation because we would assume that all things continued like they have from the beginning.

God has demonstrated the ability to heal instantly (Moses, Lepers, Guard's ear), to make sick instantly, to raise bodies from the dead after they've begun to stink (Lazarus), to control the weather, to control the movement of the planets and stars (Joshua's long day, Bethlehem star).

So there is absolutely no reason to assume God needed long ages or evolution to create man or animals.

The scientific evidence in support of evolution is not strong.

When looked at objectively, the Cambrian explosion is strong evidence of Creation not evolution.
The lack of transition fossils is strong evidence of Creation not evolution. Lining up Species going extinct and genetic disease are consistent with a cursed earth.
The idea that human's with tool making ability were around for 2,000,000 years or 200,000 years and didn't progress and didn't leave hardly any trace is simply not credible.

The scientific evidence of an old earth and universe is stronger, however:

We have identified problems with every dating technique. And they all rely on starting assumptions that we have no way at present to verify. Except that the starting assumption for K-Ar dating was recently proved false. No telling what impact that would have on current theories, if there was a way to go back and rethink everthing without relying on K-Ar dates.
There's a proof out there that the lead used to date the meteorites and thus the solar system could not have come from decayed Uranium in the meteorite itself. But the meteorites continued to be quoted as proof of the age of the earth.
Speed of Light is admittedly a problem for the age of the universe. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternative explanations. Including: Changes in the speed of light, or temporal differences affecting the creation week, propigation rates through space, and/or the distinct possibility that there were no stars on the third day and that God changed the past on the fourth day in order for starlight to arrive on time.
It is not deceptive for God to use his powers if He has a reaon to do so. And He does not have to give us the reasons for having done so. In most cases, He does, but in some He doesn't for His own reasons, which probably include that He didn't want man to advance too fast. (Babel)

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Authur C. Clark

What we do today with remote controls,cars, microwaves, flight would seem to be magic to someone of 300 years ago.
What God does today and has done in the past appears to be magic to us still. And I don't think it makes us look stupid to take that into consideration.

Correction... Lining up... variants of existing species and even extinct species and assuming common ancestors is nothing more than an assumption.

...Species going extinct and genetic disease are consistent with a cursed earth.

"Speed of Light is admittedly a problem for the age of the universe. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternative explanations. Including: Changes in the speed of light, or temporal differences affecting the creation week, propigation rates through space, and/or the distinct possibility that there were no stars on the third day and that God changed the past on the fourth day in order for starlight to arrive on time. "

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Aluminum hats for sale!

"The scientific evidence in support of evolution is not strong. "

The scientific validation of evolution is as strong as in any other field of science. Evolution has been observed, and 'objectively' considered. The observation of evolution far preceded the development of the theory.

"When looked at objectively, the Cambrian explosion is strong evidence of Creation not evolution. "

Only if it took your god 50 - 100 million years to create. There is also growing indications that not only was the 'explosion' not as explosive as first thought, the complexity of organisms was already on the rise before the Cambrian explosion.

"While the timing of the evolution of the developmental systems of living metazoan body plans is still uncertain, the distribution of Hox and other developmental control genes among metazoans indicates that an extensive patterning system was in place prior to the Cambrian."

" Valentine, W., Jablonski, D., and Erwin, D.H. 1999. Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion. Development 126: 851-859"

"The lack of transition fossils is strong evidence of Creation not evolution. Lining up Species going extinct and genetic disease are consistent with a cursed earth. "

Why would this be the case? Did God create the transitionals that we do have? Your single extinction event (Flood) would have occurred within a very short time. We have extinctions happening over everything from short to relatively long times in numerous major and minor extinction events.

"The idea that human's with tool making ability were around for 2,000,000 years or 200,000 years and didn't progress and didn't leave hardly any trace is simply not credible."

You mean aside from the fact that hunter-gatherer groups cannot support large community sizes so populations were extremely small and remote. They were also frequently, by necessity, nomadic. The smaller the population the less likely fossils are to be found. That said, we do have a growth in evidence density matching population growth as predicted.

"The scientific evidence of an old earth and universe is stronger, however: "

"We have identified problems with every dating technique. And they all rely on starting assumptions that we have no way at present to verify. Except that the starting assumption for K-Ar dating was recently proved false." Do you have cites for this? Dating methods have always had specific conditions taken into account during analysis. Even with errors, the dating methods used still give dates far older than could possibly be, given the literal reading of the Bible.

Almost all dating methods are based upon previous dating methods which have been verified through such things as tree rings and varves.

" No telling what impact that would have on current theories, if there was a way to go back and rethink everything without relying on K-Ar dates. "

Very little, there are already different methods in use.

"There's a proof out there that the lead used to date the meteorites and thus the solar system could not have come from decayed Uranium in the meteorite itself. "

Cites? See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

"But the meteorites continued to be quoted as proof of the age of the earth. "

Among other methods, which generally agree.

"Speed of Light is admittedly a problem for the age of the universe. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternative explanations. Including: Changes in the speed of light, or temporal differences affecting the creation week, propigation rates through space, and/or the distinct possibility that there were no stars on the third day and that God changed the past on the fourth day in order for starlight to arrive on time. "

You are truly reaching.