Posted on 09/27/2013 3:53:17 AM PDT by kimtom
According to evolutionary theory’s assumption-based dating methods and circular reasoning (see DeYoung, 2005), for well over 100 million years large sauropod dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Antetonitrus allegedly lived more than 200 million years ago, Apatosaurus 150 million years ago, and Argentinosaurus 95 million years ago—about 30 million years before dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct. Note that these dinosaurs supposedly did not flourish on Earth for just hundreds or thousands of years, but for multiplied millions of years. Evolutionists contend that dinosaurs inhabited Earth at least 500 times longer than “modern humans.”
Consider the connection between the vast time that sauropod dinosaurs allegedly were on Earth with a recent study published in Current Biology concerning “climate warmth” (i.e., global warming). According to Dr. David Wilkinson of John Moores University in Liverpool, and his colleagues, sauropods produced massive amounts of the “greenhouse” gas methane, which would have warmed the planet considerably. [NOTE: Scientists have suggested that greenhouse gas is “21 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat on Earth and causing climate change” (“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’…,” 2012).] Wilkinson and colleagues conservatively estimate that the “global methane production from sauropods” was “520 million tonnes per year” (2012, 22[9]:292-93, emp. added). Just how much is 520 million tons, comparatively speaking? According to Wilkinson, “Our calculations suggest these dinosaurs may have produced more methane than all the modern sources, natural and human, put together” (“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’…,” emp. added).
Even though sauropods supposedly would have warmed the planet .........
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
Gaseous dinosaurs... Oh, this isn’t an article about congress. Who knew?
If you could be bothered to do any real research on Dr. Walt Brown I think you’d find that he does have many credentials beyond his PhD and he did indeed work in the field of ‘evolutionary’ science [left b/c he was highly disturbed by the amount of fabrication and outright lying by his peers].
Furthermore, once any scientist goes against the evo meme they will not be published nor peer-reviewed by the evo scientific periodical gate-keepers. Talk about close-minded - reminds me of the global warming accepters!
I did not re-read the article posted about Mary Schweitzer from some time ago and so if my memory failed me, sorry. But I do recall some other article regarding this same dig site being referred to as smelling of rotting flesh. Google it yourself.
Lastly, I’m not taking her research out of context. Rather she contradicts herself at the time of the article and later even invents a just-so story to try to describe how any soft tissue can remain intact for such a long time - an outright distortion of the truth to support a theory that deserved to die out long long ago. A method the evos use time and time again to explain away the problems inherent in long ages evolution.
Ever notice how the cherry-picking you accuse creation followers of doing can be shown historically [and still ongoing] thousands of times greater being done with the evolution hypocritical just-so story-telling?
Read ‘10 Icons of Evolution’ or better yet explain how honest and forthright evolution believers are being with panspermia or punctuated equilibrium? Or the Cambrian explosion, piltdown man, etc. - the list is ridculously long and never stops growing.
I wonder how much we could improve the integrity and reliability of science if we remove all the funny money - federal, state, and university grants - rather let them use their own money and find their own private financiers.
Wonder if they see how the emperor’s clothing is quickly going thread-bare, wonder if they even care to bring back the integrity they are so sorely losing?
According to his biography on the Center for Scientific Creation website he did not, nor ever worked in the field of ‘evolutionary’ science unless you consider mechanical engineering, physics, mathematics, and computer science, as ‘evolutionary’ science and being a Director of Benét Laboratories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benét_Laboratories ). His bio states that he was ““an evolutionist” but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.” That sounds more like he took up a hobby after retiring from the military rather than leaving because he was highly disturbed by the amount of fabrication and outright lying by his peers. If you are going to lie, Brandt, at least make it a good lie and one that is not so easy to refute.
Furthermore, once any scientist goes against the evo meme they will not be published nor peer-reviewed by the evo scientific periodical gate-keepers. Talk about close-minded - reminds me of the global warming accepters!
Funny, astrologers and ancient alien theorists are not published in any serious peer reviewed astronomy journals and periodicals either. Damned those closed minded gate-keepers.
I did not re-read the article posted about Mary Schweitzer from some time ago and so if my memory failed me, sorry. But I do recall some other article regarding this same dig site being referred to as smelling of rotting flesh. Google it yourself.
No, Brandt, but you can Google it. Let us know what you find…
Lastly, I’m not taking her research out of context. Rather she contradicts herself at the time of the article and later even invents a just-so story to try to describe how any soft tissue can remain intact for such a long time - an outright distortion of the truth to support a theory that deserved to die out long long ago. A method the evos use time and time again to explain away the problems inherent in long ages evolution.
The only contradictions are those created by creationists when they quote out of context or make stuff up.
Whatever - trying to reason with people who think evolution is science is quite nearly impossible.
Just remember this one bub, science is not following the scientific method when it attempts to re-create history.
How would you ever duplicate thousands or millions or billions of years experimentally? Reasoning and logic go hand in hand with true science.
Whatever – trying to reason with people who think evolution and the geologic age of the earth is one and the same is quite nearly impossible.
Without long ages - which is quite impossible with or without dinosaur farts - evolution is impossible. In fact any mathematician worth his weight in salt could tell you trillions of years is not enough time for macro-evolution.
Clearly, I have chosen to serve God by observing and describing as accurately as possible the nature of His universe. I do not take the side of prideful charlatans who mock Christianity and would happily destroy it in order to sell a few books. Yes, they do drive people away from Christianity with their lies. And I will continue to pray for the people who fall for those charlatans, that they may one day realize the depth of the lies they have fallen for, and turn back to learning about the real and true universe that God has given us.
I believe that the devil is also known as the prince of lies. Since those creationist charlatans try to deceive you by telling you that a moral guide is actually a scientific discourse, I'll leave it to you to figure out who *they* are really working for.
so I am a illiterate am I?
You are scientifically illiterate. People like you do a great deal of harm to all of Christianity; kids these days mock Christians for being stupid, and promoting anti-science is not helping the situation at all.
Delineating Christianity by a NON-Christian is tripe
So, you have fallen for the lie that one cannot be both a Christian and a scientist? Tsk, tsk.
not even a true evolutionist would argue against established science fact.
You do realize that by comparing science to a religion the way you did by using the word "evolutionist", you reveal a lot about your feelings about religion. When people want to denigrate something, they generally compare it to something that they hold in contempt.
shall I quote only evolutionist journals then??? I can still prove my point.
Ah, another attempt to denigrate science by equating it with a religion. You should really think twice about doing that. Also, if you want to prove your point (whatever it is) by using scientific journals, that's great. But you can't cherry pick from those journals--you have to quote them in context and provide full references so that anyone can check that you are accurately representing what the journal said, and that the journal is a good quality journal.
so you support man made global warming then?
I'll discuss global warming in an appropriate thread. In fact, I have commented many times on global warming. Feel free to look through my old posts to find those comments.
Really? Weren't you the one who posted earlier in this thread something lifted directly out of one of those pseudoscience creationist sites?
Well, in case you forgot what the website was, chances are good that it was Answers in Genesis. Another possibility would be Institute of Creation Research. There are others. I won't put any actual web addresses here; if anyone wants to give those crackpots internet traffic, they're going to have to find the web addresses themselves.
Solar science bump
I’d challenge you to do one more thing - read your Bible for 30-60 minutes every day and see if it doesn’t begin to change your whole outlook on life.
God’s word is trustworthy and true all the way through. His recorded history of creation and mankind are without even one error.
Calculating the age of the earth is not dependent upon evolution. Geologic time and astrological time are not dependent on evolution or even on biologic life forms.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe
I doubt you will find any reputable mathematician, one who also has a strong grasp of geology, astronomy and biology telling anyone that macro evolution would take trillions of years. And even if he did, if one does not believe that macro evolution exists or ever took place, then what difference would that have on the age of the Earth?
In other words let’s say that I have a 5 quart pot of cold water and a 7000 BTU gas burner on which to heat the water to boiling. I bought the pot 10 years ago and have a receipt for it to prove it. I say it will take 10 minutes to bring the water to a boil but you say it will take 3 times that long. If it takes 10 minutes, does that change the age of the pot? Even if it does takes 3 times as long as I said, does that change the age of the pot?
I’d challenge you to do one more thing - read your Bible for 30-60 minutes every day and see if it doesn’t begin to change your whole outlook on life.
God’s word is trustworthy and true all the way through. His recorded history of creation and mankind are without even one error.
The Bible is not a scientific document, and I could spend every waking hour of every day for the rest of my life reading it, and that simple fact would not change. This fact is irrelevant to my outlook on life.
I thank God that I have the wisdom and intelligence to realize that the people trying to convince others that the story of Genesis is a scientific report instead of a moral lesson are nothing but con men. In fact, given that they lie so profusely and easily, I would say that they aren't on God's side at all. I seem to recall reading about the prince of lies--I think they're doing his work, not God's.
Ha YOU guessed it!!!!!
You are using the “straw man” argument....
WEAK
In your “twisted” reality, a Christian cannot be a scientist...unless they believe in Evilution...
by the way? evolution is a religion.....
sorry not worth my breath,
You may have the LAST word
Not every one bows to the altar of Satan and the Evolutionary Church.
(hey wake up)
A PhD does not guarantee intelligent/rational thought.....I know......(that goes for quacks in the medical field..I know a few of them too)
Note: Your argument for credentials is False, since there are many Creationist that have
appropriate” degrees, but it is also FALSE to argue that someone without a degree (in that field) cannot use the work of someone else who does...etc.
image of Christians as illiterate heathens?..”
so I am a illiterate am I?
You are scientifically illiterate
...”
You need to read God’s reply to Job;
“..who is this that darkens counsel by
words without knowledge...”
ignorance IS deafening.....
I would be surprised if you could even explain in your own words what a "straw man" argument is. "In your own words," BTW, means without copying and pasting.
In your “twisted” reality, a Christian cannot be a scientist...unless they believe in Evilution...
by the way? evolution is a religion.....
Let me try to explain this again. You are trying to tell me how much you hate and distrust science by calling it a religion. By doing this, you are telling me that you have a very low opinion of religion. If you had a high opinion of religion, you would find something that you think is vile to compare science to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.