Skip to comments.
Evolution Disclaimer Supported
The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^
| 12/11/02
| WILL SENTELL
Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,441-1,460, 1,461-1,480, 1,481-1,500 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: Junior
You beat me by a minute.
To: js1138
Let's face it God has, in the flood, killed a higher percentage of living things than any deranged scientist of polititian could ever dream of doing. Let's face it, God, in the course a normal working day, kills more living things than any deranged scientist.
And one day he's going to do it to you and me. How does one deal with that?
To: Tribune7
And He does these things at times so people will believe in Him. Exactly! And His miracles are used sparingly, typically to illustrate a specific point He's trying to make. However, there is no evidence of the miraculous in the ascent of man, nor is there any evidence of the miraculous in the ascent of life on this world. Indeed, all the evidence points to a mundane explanation.
To: Junior
She's on our side. She was referring to creationists. OH.
Those closed-minded folks.
:-(
To: PatrickHenry
The other group has no evidence, other than some ancient and venerable writings, the sources of which are not available for verification.
Are sure about this ? Or is it just one group has evidence you agree with, while the other group has evidence that with you do not agree ?
If I was to study the reasons for the "young earth" theory, are you telling me all I will stumble across is ancient writings and not one bit of scientific reasoning ?
To: Junior
When multiple forms of radiometric dating come to the same conclusion as to the age of a rock sample, one can come to a fairly definite conclusion as to the age of that rock. Only if you're the kind of person who believes in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy without asking questions.
A number of the problems involved in radiometric dating are discussed at this site.
The biggest thing which the purveyers of these kinds of theories have to explain to my own thinking is the question of how many of these kinds of heavy metals get to the Earth's surface in the first place. You'd think that if the Earth itself formed up via some condensation process as is generally thought to be the case, then all the heavy metals would be in the interior if not the center.
It seems much more likely that many if not most of the heavy metals got here from meteorites, asteroids, comets or whatever, after the Earth had already formed up and its crust hardened. In that case, the age of the heavy metals and the age of the Earth itself would be unrelated.
To: Tribune7
How does one deal with that? Lunchtime. MY ANSWER when I return.
;^)
To: js1138
You make it sound as if there were something tricky about forming a fossil. There isn't. All you need to do is get buried in mud or clay before the scavengers and maggots get to you. That happens during large floods, volcanos etc. It cannot happen on a large scale via gradual processes as evolutionists and some geologists like to think.
To: usastandsunited
If I was to study the reasons for the "young earth" theory, are you telling me all I will stumble across is ancient writings and not one bit of scientific reasoning ? Yes; because that's exactly what geologists do -- they study the verifiable evidence. If you're aware of some verifiable "young earth" evidence that geologists ignore, why not tell us about it?
To: PatrickHenry
If you're aware of some verifiable "young earth" evidence that geologists ignore, why not tell us about
Well Patrick, it didn't take long to find several geologists who believe in the "young earth" theory. Before I go any further, I must tell you that many also are "Christians". Does a geologist being a "Christian" automatically mean the geologist is some crack pot with a hidden agenda and no verifiable evidence because he/she is a Christian ? Before I post links, I don't want to waste your time.
To: titanmike
Riiiiiiggghhhtt, while I'm sure Dr. David Plaisted is a well intentioned man, I'll begin believing a Computer Scientist on Geologic matters when I begin taking C++ pointers from Darwin.
Aside from the fact that he himself states on his homepage that his non-peer reviewed creationist articles are based on his fundamentalist christian viewpoint.
Next? Sheesh.
To: usastandsunited
Before I post links, I don't want to waste your time. I asked for verifiable geological evidence of "young earth" theory, and you respond by trying to provoke a dispute about religion. If you have no evidence, why not just say so?
To: PatrickHenry
, and you respond by trying to provoke a dispute about religion. uh, i think you brought that up first.
To: PatrickHenry
LoL. Nice Try Patrick. Find some "facts", show how ignorant we are as a society by us not knowing these "facts". Then slip in this :
* 66% don't believe the Big Bang theory widely accepted by scientists;
* 48% believe humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs;
* 47% don't believe in evolution which is widely accepted by scientists;
as if these are just more "facts" the ignorant people of society don't "know".
Besides, I thought you wanted to keep people's opinion influenced by their religion out of the discussion.
About us info from your "SOURCE".
To: titanmike
Plaisted-style arguments are handled nicely in
Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective. You may want to skip ahead to the section on "Common Misconceptions" if you're certain that you know everything else already. (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!)
To: usastandsunited
I assume that you have no verifiable young earth evidence. If you did, you would have presented it. So the original question remains -- given that geologists do have such evidence, and given that you have no such evidence for any younger age, how do you decide what to believe?
To: PatrickHenry
You can not limit God/creation to your dumb thinking...
God doesn't count on His fingers---your calender/date book!
Everything new would have age---history...even descendents.
You think you can interpret God with your stupidity---blidness--ego?
The Earth is old as God wanted/made it!
God isn't going to operate by your terms---expectations!
To: A2J
Evolution by natural causes: Not proven (and cannot be) but widely assumed to be true based on available evidence.
Creation by divine design: Not proven (and cannot be) but also widely assumed to be true based on available evidence.
Which of these has been given unquestioned reign in the classroom for the past century in the United States? Which covers itself in legalisms preventing the slightest reference to the other? Which has adherents that squeak and squeal like pigs when the suggestion is made even if only in a small textbook disclaimer - that other explanantions for the existence of the universe may be true?
The arrogance of so forcefully positing unproven matters while discounting other possibilities with equal force is unbecoming of educational pursuits. One would think evolution could produce more and more brilliant thinking over time. Alas, however, evolutionists are seen to bend over backwards in eliminating certain possibilities thus giving ample demonstration of devolution with respect to the sciences. Ancillary retro shift resulting from ingnorance held with the tenacity of a rabid pit bull.
To: PatrickHenry
The Earth is old/YOUNG as God wanted/made it!
To: titanmike
You make it sound as if there were something tricky about forming a fossil. There isn't. Excellent. Now, since it isn't tricky and doesn't take long, point me to someone who's made one, and can tell how it's done.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,441-1,460, 1,461-1,480, 1,481-1,500 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson