Freethought & Rationalism Archive

caravelair · 06-10-2003, 11:27 PM

once, i asked a YEC for scientific evidence that the earth was 6,000 years old, and this was the response i got:

"sure! well first, we know for a fact that Jesus was a real person, even if you dont believe in Christianity. there is historical evidence that Jesus lived and that he was crucified. this was 2 thousand years ago. the rest you kinda have to believe the bible is true to believe...so when Genesis begins the earth was created, between Adam and Eve, and Mary and Joseph there is appoximately 6 thousand years...6+2=8!"

caravelair · 06-10-2003, 11:29 PM

this one was just confusing:

"I have read a marvelous little book that explains how the enite Universe could have been made, in a mere six days, and still account for many things that evolution doesn't.

For instance, the red shift. How do you explain the fact that it appears as everything in the universe is moving away from us?"

i don't think i ever got him to explain what the hell the argument was.

pariah · 06-11-2003, 12:39 AM

oh i got another one:

"science is just 90% theories anyway, you cant trust it. thats why people always go back to the bible"

Kevbo · 06-11-2003, 04:05 AM

Quote:

First of all, man is no longer viewed as created in the image of God. According to Scripture, man was created in God's image, and, although fallen, is strictly under God's law. Man cannot be reduced to the level of an animal. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The state is made for man, not man for the state. Man is called to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever, and the world is man's dominion under God. But the evolutionary theory views man as a product of the world rather than a destined lord over it in Christ. Man is seen as having evolved out of the fortuitous concourse of atoms and out of the primeval slime. Instead of being set over nature, man is set under nature as a product of it. Man is reduced to the same slavish status as existed during antiquity in ancient Egypt and other states which held to an evolutionary concept.

This gets to one point of contention I have with the paradoxical views creationists hold humans in. Depending on what the situation calls for, humans are either terrible, festering, diseased sinners or the very special children of a God who made them in His image and loves them very much. Could they pick a consistent worldview and just run with it?

Godless Dave · 06-11-2003, 05:53 AM

I'm more shocked at the assertion that Egyptian scientists understood evolution thousands of years before Darwin.

theyeti · 06-11-2003, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave
I'm more shocked at the assertion that Egyptian scientists understood evolution thousands of years before Darwin.

Not only that, but according to the ICR, there were all sorts of "anti-Christian" philosophies practiced by the ancient Greeks and other cultures, many hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.

theyeti

Xixax · 06-11-2003, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti
Not only that, but according to the ICR, there were all sorts of "anti-Christian" philosophies practiced by the ancient Greeks and other cultures, many hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.

theyeti

Satan was getting a head start.

Mageth · 06-11-2003, 08:04 AM

The greatest erosional force is generally where the water is flowing over the lip of the fall. As the lip is eroded away, the waterfall slowly migrates upstream. Niagara Falls is somewhat farther upstream today than it was 10,000 years ago.

Not for falls with sharply vertical dropoffs like Niagara. Niagara Falls flows over a hard(er) layer of rock lying on top of some softer, more porous strata. The greatest erosion comes from the undercutting of the softer lower strata, esp. at the plunge pool, which erode much faster than the harder rock above. After a while, the lower strata are cut back far enough that a bit of the top layer collapses (that's where those big honkin' boulders at the base of the fall and in the riverbed downstream from the fall come from), causing the lip of the Fall to retreat and the process start over again.

The scenario you mentioned would result in a sloped fall or eventually a cascade, as the lip of the fall retreated, leaving the base behind, not the spectacular, sharp dropoff falls like Niagara and other similar falls.

roxrkool · 06-11-2003, 10:59 AM

While it might not be "dumb," per se, the fact that a creation science website has a Baloney Detector strikes me as hilarious.

I especially liked their evolutionist examples. Here's one:

Quote:

Circular Reasoning:

Assuming long ages for radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages.

ps418 · 06-11-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Circular Reasoning:

Assuming long ages for radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages.

That's a good one. After all, it is widely known that physicists have never actually measured nuclear decay rates. They just pull random numbers out of a big hat and call them decay rates.

Patrick

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-10-2003, 11:27 PM	#61
caravelair Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: toronto Posts: 420	once, i asked a YEC for scientific evidence that the earth was 6,000 years old, and this was the response i got: "sure! well first, we know for a fact that Jesus was a real person, even if you dont believe in Christianity. there is historical evidence that Jesus lived and that he was crucified. this was 2 thousand years ago. the rest you kinda have to believe the bible is true to believe...so when Genesis begins the earth was created, between Adam and Eve, and Mary and Joseph there is appoximately 6 thousand years...6+2=8!"

06-10-2003, 11:29 PM	#62
caravelair Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: toronto Posts: 420	this one was just confusing: "I have read a marvelous little book that explains how the enite Universe could have been made, in a mere six days, and still account for many things that evolution doesn't. For instance, the red shift. How do you explain the fact that it appears as everything in the universe is moving away from us?" i don't think i ever got him to explain what the hell the argument was.

06-11-2003, 12:39 AM	#63
pariah Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: الرياض Posts: 6,456	oh i got another one: "science is just 90% theories anyway, you cant trust it. thats why people always go back to the bible"

06-11-2003, 05:53 AM	#65
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	I'm more shocked at the assertion that Egyptian scientists understood evolution thousands of years before Darwin.

06-11-2003, 08:04 AM	#68
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The greatest erosional force is generally where the water is flowing over the lip of the fall. As the lip is eroded away, the waterfall slowly migrates upstream. Niagara Falls is somewhat farther upstream today than it was 10,000 years ago. Not for falls with sharply vertical dropoffs like Niagara. Niagara Falls flows over a hard(er) layer of rock lying on top of some softer, more porous strata. The greatest erosion comes from the undercutting of the softer lower strata, esp. at the plunge pool, which erode much faster than the harder rock above. After a while, the lower strata are cut back far enough that a bit of the top layer collapses (that's where those big honkin' boulders at the base of the fall and in the riverbed downstream from the fall come from), causing the lip of the Fall to retreat and the process start over again. The scenario you mentioned would result in a sloped fall or eventually a cascade, as the lip of the fall retreated, leaving the base behind, not the spectacular, sharp dropoff falls like Niagara and other similar falls.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.