Oikoman

Well, just grabbing a few from your more recent, I'm posting links to talkorigins where they respond and cite further information. The responses are short, so if they don't satisfy, check the cited documents. As I said, these are responses to "old chestnuts" that keep recurring in creationist literature and postings. Most people on this forum are not going to waste their time writing detailed refutations to these arguments... the nice ones will at least post links to refutations.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD231.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD211.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD200.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD202.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD203.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC340.html



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

Jack the Bodiless

The Sun isn't rapidly shrinking, we know where comets and space dust come from, the Earth's magnetic field isn't undergoing exponential decay...

...Basically, ALL your arguments.

That's why you're being asked to check your "facts".

Creationism is based ENTIRELY on falsehoods, not facts.

PetriFB

Arthur Eddington (English astrophysician in 1930's) : : When we go backwards in time, we will come still organized world. Finally we come to moment, in which all material and energy is so in the order as it only can be. Further to past we can not get. We have come to time and space on the segment to impassable point, which we can call only on the word "beginning". .. For me is completely acceptable this decision, which current natural science offers from the future - heat death of the macrocosm .

William Jevons (English philosopher in 1870's): We can't trace heat history of macrocosm with endless long way to the past. In the certain point we get impossible results, which refer to such heat division, which can't be derived according to law of nature from anywhere those preceded division. .. <----->The warmth concerning theory forces us either to believe, that world has been created one on the a certain moment, or then we have to presumable, that law of nature before have been another kind of as nowadays.

How reliable are fact's of science, which concern theory of evolution?

When you read scientific research from theory of evolution; so you will find words like; presumably, about, have estimated, and so on.

How reliable is this kind of information?

Do you really think that people can develop machines and gadget's by which we can solve the beginning of the macrocosm and the beginning of the forming of the life?

There has been so many things and those consequences in all things when we are researching the past. That it is impossible to get real and genuine infromation about all things.

Evolution theory is adult's fairy tale, which is same gategory than fairy tale from princess who kissed the frog and that frog changed a prince.

It is much easier to believe the Bible and creation than fairy tales.

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/Can_we_t...inst_the_Bible

Have a nice day to all member and reader of the forum. ............ :wave:

Sven

Your points are rather laughable, but let me comment on some anyway.
I anyway suspect that you are only hear to preach and not to learn, since you respond to refutations of your "arguments" simply with a repition of the same crap.

You argue history with sources from 1961 and 1966?
I suggest to look up some more recent discoveries, say from the last thirty or twenty years.

And BTW, cave paintings have been dated using exactly this method you brought up (Carbon dating) to be about 20.000 years old.

Laughable.

Using which growth constant, please? This is ridiculous to the highest degree, population growth has varied widely even in the last 400 years.

You may also want to mention that most people died at young age (< 30) most often, that many children died before getting 5 years old, that the palgue wiped out large parts of the population etc. etc. etc.

This indicates that these laughable estimates prove nothing. Following your reasoning, Adam and Eve (or whoever) must have existed 1300 years ago. Seems to rise some problem for Jesus having died 2000 years ago.

This promises to be interesting...

Hint: We know this from chemistry. No "hypothesis and guess" at all, the only assumption is that chemistry was the same in the past.

And there are other methods which even don't need this knowledge.

For a good introduction, please visit Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

Sven

(1) Please discuss the "evidence" one point at a time. You won't attrack many responses by long posts including a dozen points.
(2) So far, you have only argued against evolution - not in any way for creation. Hint: This isn't a dichotomy.

Natural selection is of course the exact opposite of "accident".

And where did this "somebody" come from?
And where's the evidence for this "somebody"?

Oikoman

The problem is, I am having serious doubts that you have read any scientific research on the theory of evolution. You seem to be, as others have put it, spamming the forum with bad creationist arguments, only to ignore responses and avoid discussion.

I've been pretty polite about this... others are obviously losing their patience. I would strongly recommend that if you want a polite reception on this forum that you take the time to read some university level textbooks or review articles on evolution, or at least to read through the articles on talkorigins.org, in order to better aquaint yourself with evolution, rather than the strawman version that is promoted in creationist literature. Otherwise, people on this forum will feel that you are just mindlessly parroting the words of creationist authors without any real understanding, and will not feel it is worth their time talking to you.

Doc, over and out.

Sven

Sorry to say this, but this sounds like a story you made up. Perhaps the doctor answered that he doesn't know it, but that he indeed said that "it must be the God, which you believe" really sounds like an invention.

And there is a very, very easy explanation for where this information came from: From the environment in which our ancestors of the last 4 billion years lived in.

Sven

By doing only a little bit research you would have seen that your points are indeed only olf canards. And this research was even done by ours for you in this thread, heck, even Answers in Genesis (Creationists if the name doesn't ring a bell with you, and some of the most widely known) was linked to, even say that your points are crap.

For about the fifth time: Do a little bit research.
I really don't know if to laugh or to cry at your posts.

Sven

Do you contrast this views to show that science has moved on, or what?
So what?

Very. Why do you ask?
Hint: Some facts of science have not changed for several hundreds of years. Other have not changed for about 150 years. And this despite mountains of new data coming in in this time. Seems to be a good indication that they are not entirely wrong.

You will also find other words for things which are established as fact, such as common descent. But science makes clear which points are not (yet) certain - what's wrong about this?
And estimates often come with a margin of error, such as the age of the Earth: 4.55 +/- 0.07 billion years. Does this +/- 0.07 mean that it's not clear if the Earth is only 6000 years old? Of course not.

Since we already understand the universe back to about 10^-20 seconds after the Big Bang, this thought doesn't seem to be unwarranted.
And we also already know a lot about prebiotic chemistry.

The old "we don't know everything, so we know nothing". *yawn*

I could change "evolution" to "creation" - this would not make this sentence an argument (but at least a truth).

Since the bible is in large parts a fairy tale (especially Genesis 1+2), this doesn't make sense. Anyway, we have a forum here, called Biblical criticism and history, where topics like this should be discussed.

These texts are not only hard to read, but full of more laughable statements. Please discuss this in BC&H - the people there also want to have fun.

Ovazor

The total world population in 1AD is estimated to have been about 300 million. In 1750AD it was some 760 million, a figure that should have been reached, were your claim correct, more than at housand years earlier, around 600AD. On the other hand, world population reached 1 billion around year 1800, and is ow, only 200 years later, more than six times that figure. In other words, your "doulbles every 400 years" is very different from what historical data about the total human population says. Therefore, you cannot use that to calculate anything.

"Feels" right?"

No, it indicates that your rate for populaltion growth isn't realistic.

Yes, a sustained population growth with 20th century growth rates could create the current population fast. But this approach ignores the fact that it is known that the population growth rate was much lower earlier.