FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Young Earth Creationism (Page 6)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Young Earth Creationism
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
God is the final Judge, whom we must all face. And His knowledge and understanding are complete and perfect.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A question on the justice of God-we were all created last Thursday along with the entire universe, but human beings were created with memories. Many of us have sinful memories of course, since God creates complicated false memories. But my question is, if I die tomorrow with a whole lot of sinful memories of 30 years or so I didn't actually live, does that count against me in judgment?

I don't want to hear about how any of this is nonsense, either. It's my faith and it cannot be challenged, questioned, criticized, or disregarded. All those who do are either disrespectful bigots or pawns of the enemy.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Samprimary, most of what you and your snarling cohorts have to say is unworthy of response.

But why, exactly? Are you going to claim that what I'm saying is offensive and in a uselessly antagonistic tone? One that I should not use if I want to prove I'm intent on honestly debating the issue with you?

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blaming the belief in Evolution for Hitler's actions is like blaming Jesus for the invasion of Iraq. Bush Jr said God told him to do it, after all. Let's not forget the Crusades and every other major war fought with God's will as its justification.

Blaming Evolution is stupid and ignorant. Hitler was a Christian, but we don't shun Christianity because of it, so why shun Evolution? No, Ron is just using this as an excuse, trying to shift the spotlight onto something else because he knows he's running out of material. It's a move of desparation and nothing more.

Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
narrativium
Member
Member # 3230

 - posted      Profile for narrativium           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
God is the final Judge, whom we must all face. And His knowledge and understanding are complete and perfect.

Or maybe your god does not exist. We'll probably never know conclusively within our lifetimes.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff C.:
Blaming the belief in Evolution for Hitler's actions is like blaming Jesus for the invasion of Iraq.

Jeff, that is a pretty stupid thing to say. Adolph Hitler himself SAID that evolution was his justification for his campaign to wipe out the Jews. He called it "survival of the fittest," and he meant to prove that the "Aryan" race was the fittest. This is documented. Why do you presume to lie about history so blatantly?

Have you ever read the full, original title of Charles Darwin's book, "Origins of Species"? Here it is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Can't you manage at least a modicum of honesty to acknowledge that that title has just a hint of racism in it? What is to keep anyone from concluding that the way to prove that his race is the one that is favored, is by killing off the competition?

narrativium, I think it is most likely that most people here in this forum will live to see the end of the world, very soon. Those who die will rise in either the first or second general resurrections, to receive their ajudicated rewards. No one will escape. You can be on the good side of the Judgment, if you place your faith in the goodness of God, and worship the Creator instead of the creature. (Everyone worships one or the other, without exception.)

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the end of the world is coming you should be more prompt in addressing my question to you.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Samprimary: still unworthy of response.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But you haven't explained WHY my statement is unworthy of response. That's the most important thing. If you don't, it's like you're just ignoring it because it's inconveniently difficult for you to address without admitting some hypocrisy on your part.

Which is fine, of course. If you want to just grant me that victory, your silence will speak volumes.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only thing my silence speaks, Samprimary, is that I do not respect the intelligence of your comments enough to make them worthy of further response.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
George W Bush is an exception. He was killing Muslims, so that is ok. Ron needs the Jews alive so they can convert to Christianity and/or kill all the Muslims in the holy land to bring about the end of the world.

Of course if the world is ending, why are creationists wasting time on pushing their agenda. Shouldn't they, I don't know, be spreading the more important aspects of their faith and try to convert people?

Back before my atheism I was in line to take one of the Praxis tests (to become a teacher in Maryland). An older (soon to be science) teacher in front of me started up a conversation with me. I mentioned I would not be celebrating Christmas being Jewish, and he had lots of questions about Judaism. He asked me how I resolved my faith with teaching evolution and the Big Bang. I told him that in my mind there were lots more important things in the bible than the opening story. He actually liked that.

Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The only thing my silence speaks, Samprimary, is that I do not respect the intelligence of your comments enough to make them worthy of further response.

really? That's funny. Because I've been intentionally copy-pasting your own text and your own language, switching the target of its vitriol to creationists, and then seeing how you respond to YOUR OWN tone. YOUR OWN hubristic arrogance. Not anyone else's, just your own.

What do you do when you're confronted with the way that YOU SPEAK to others? You call it too unintelligent to make it worthy of further response.

Yeah, sounds about right.

see, this?

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Ron Lambert, you coccoon yourself in swaths of self-affirming terminology which you think amounts to a scientific discipline, when actually it is you who have have no idea what genuine, actual reality is.

Another way to say it is that you have been brainwashed by creationists in positions of authority over you "teaching" you their "truth" since childhood on.

When all other argument and what you think is persuasion fail, you resort to insults and ridicule, because at the heart of it you cannot respect challenges to your world view. You cannot agree to disagree, you cannot admit that your opponents have reasonable positions that are supported by real evidence; you have to despise. I have witnessed this over and over again, so that I can only conclude that this must be an inherent characteristic of all defenders of creationism that eventually turns up sooner or later. It is not just your brainwashed world view that scientists must contend with, they must also endure your hatred. Have you ever asked yourselves who is really pulling your strings, and making you feel the things that you feel?

Why, that was actually pretty much you, when you said this.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:

Samprimary, et al., you coccoon yourself in swaths of self-affirming terminology which you think amounts to a scientific discipline, when actually it is you who have have no idea what genuine, actual reality is.

Another way to say it is that you have been brainwashed by evolutionists in positions of authority over you "teaching" you their "truth" since childhood on.

And when all other argument and what you think is persuasion fail, you resort to insults and ridicule, because at the heart of it you cannot respect challenges to your world view. You cannot agree to disagree, you cannot admit that your opponents have reasonable positions that are supported by real evidence; you have to despise. I have witnessed this over and over again, so that I can only conclude that this must be an inherent characteristic of all defenders of evolution that eventually turns up sooner or later. It is not just your brainwashed world view that creationists must contend with, they must also endure your hatred. Have you ever asked yourselves who is really pulling your strings, and making you feel the things that you feel?

http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=048777;p=13#000609

And I chose this as a specific example because it was a point at which you first started really getting into making it that I argued with you because i was demonically influenced.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a trap!
Posts: 6996 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
narrativium
Member
Member # 3230

 - posted      Profile for narrativium           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Holy crap, Sam. That's. . . brilliant.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I stand by every word, Samprimary. And you never said anything worthy of serious consideration, for the reasons I stated. If you choose to be deliberately stupid and unreasoning, then I have no obligation to follow you into such irrational underbrush. Your falsely characterizing the nature of my comments does not constitute a rational argument. Deal with my actual arguments substantively and directly, confronting facts, and answering fact for fact, citing sources, and then perhaps I will consider you worthy of my time.

Your sophomoric arguing does not constitute mature debating.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, you are doing the same thing you condemn Sam for. You don't get to slide by because you believe you are right.
Posts: 6996 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your sophomoric arguing does not constitute mature debating.
Yeah, that's the point. I'm debating you using your own rhetoric, copied almost word for word. You are condemning your own immature, sophomoric "debating" and calling it too immature to warrant a response. You pretty much totally just called your own behavior too unintelligent to consider worth addressing. Welcome to how nearly everyone else has felt about you for a long time. Welcome to your blindness to your own lack of credibility.

You're just completely proving my point. I argued with you as you argue with everyone, and it's too much even for you. Yet, somehow, when you're acting this way, you're supremely blind to your own actions.

Congratulations.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dude, Ron, it's over. You just got all pissy about the tone of your own words. I thought Sam's text was a bit out of character for him, but I had no idea it was because he was parroting you. Oh my bloody hell, I'm in awe on so many levels.

/tips sam a libation of his choosing (do you take BTC?)

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jeff [Ron], that is a pretty stupid thing to say. Adolph Hitler [George Bush] himself SAID that evolution [Jesus] was his justification for his campaign to wipe out the Jews [invade Iraq].
quote:
Why do you presume to lie about history so blatantly?
If was lying about history, I would have said that it never happened, Ron. Stop twisting my words. I made a comparison. You clearly do not understand the difference.

quote:
Have you ever read the full, original title of Charles Darwin's book, "Origins of Species"? Here it is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Can't you manage at least a modicum of honesty to acknowledge that that title has just a hint of racism in it?
Is it racism when a lion kills a zebra? How about when a fish adapts to a polluted river in Idaho because of all the toxic waste? No, Ron, facts are not racist. They are facts. Just because you do not like something, does not mean it isn't true.

quote:
What is to keep anyone from concluding that the way to prove that his race is the one that is favored, is by killing off the competition?
Ron, science has shown that human beings, no matter the race, are almost completely identical. There are small genetic differences, but they are almost completely the same. Evolution does not propose that we self-eliminate. It simply states that the envirnment will force the animals to adapt, and those that adapt will survive. Human beings are at fault for whatever they do, not a factual scientific theory.

quote:
narrativium, I think it is most likely that most people here in this forum will live to see the end of the world, very soon. Those who die will rise in either the first or second general resurrections, to receive their ajudicated rewards. No one will escape. You can be on the good side of the Judgment, if you place your faith in the goodness of God, and worship the Creator instead of the creature. (Everyone worships one or the other, without exception.) [/QB]
Ron, this is why you will always lose every debate you get into, at least with an intelligent and well informed person. You cannot argue science with scripture. It doesn't work. Scripture is biased and faith based. Science requires nothing other than facts and observation.

Believe whatever you want, Ron, but you will never convince anyone here, because most of these people are actually informed.

Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
/tips sam a libation of his choosing (do you take BTC?)

oh, jeez. i .. have stayed as far away from btc as i possibly could, but the notion of being able to say i once owned ron so hard I was given a drink????

dude thanks

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's BTC?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
bitcoin
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's magic pretend money that you buy for no reason and then someone else buys it from you for much more money, again for no reason.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
It's magic pretend money that you buy for no reason and then someone else buys it from you for much more money, again for no reason.

Brilliant!
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ha, not oversold at all.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was referring to the way they killed the joke by trying to explain the punchline. I knew it was going to be a blank list before I clicked the link. And yet I found not only a notice stating that there was indeed no list, but tumbleweeds and cricket chirps just in case I didn't get it. (Upon clicking the link again, it appears that the notice that there is no list has been edited away--making it marginally funnier.)
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
my post was unrelated, I just think that Project Steve has to be brought up from time to time, especially when we get a massive load of lists and sources from places like answers in genesis
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know one of those Steves.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bill Nye to debate Ken Ham

Tickets cost $25 so I assume Nye is getting paid. But I really wish he wouldn't. When you debate someone, it kind of lends some credence to their argument. And they have none. At all. Zero. Zilch.

Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even the topic, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific world?”, makes the whole thing about creationism. It would be like inviting Stephen Hawking to debate the merits of following Voldemort.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yuck.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr. Y
Member
Member # 11590

 - posted      Profile for Mr. Y   Email Mr. Y         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
He told us His purpose in doing so--so there would be a universe filled with light.

Because God is afraid of the dark.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Have you ever read the full, original title of Charles Darwin's book, "Origins of Species"? Here it is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Can't you manage at least a modicum of honesty to acknowledge that that title has just a hint of racism in it? What is to keep anyone from concluding that the way to prove that his race is the one that is favored, is by killing off the competition?

Because the systematic extermination of a 'competing' race is not Natural Selection.
Should it be succesful, it does not prove that the survivors are better in all respects. It only proves that they are more ruthless.

It is like destroying your neighbour's brand new car by nudging it off a cliff with your own vehicle that is held together only by rust and some duct tape and then claiming that this proves your car is the better one.

[ January 03, 2014, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Y ]

Posts: 981 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I should also point out that there is nothing systematic about natural selection, nor any suggestion of the kind in Darwin's title.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is the thread where I previously presented arguments and evidences that favor Creation and contradict Evolution. I do have more to add, even more conclusive arguments and evidences.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh this is the thread that I owned you so hard in it that I was offered a congratulatory drink. Thanks for bringing it up to remind everyone that that happened. It's been a weird month so I needed the levity.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Samprimary, you said nothing substantive to counter my arguments and evidences. Once again, you are merely pretending you won a debate when you never did. Let anyone read through the thread and see for themselves who has the real weight of evidence behind him.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Evidences Concerning the Real Age of the Universe

Main argument for vast ages (billions of years) for the universe:

The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 186,000 miles per second. Since the universe has been estimated to be billions of light years across, it must have taken billions of years for the light of the most distant stellar objects to reach earth.

Counter argument:

God’s first command in creating earth was “Let there be light.” He did not want a dark universe, where we would have to wait millions of years for the light even of the nearby stellar objects to reach earth. So did God create the universe so that the light from every point in space was already reaching every other point in space? He did create the trees of Eden with apparent age. Isaiah 42:5 says that God “Spread out” the heavens.

Test:

If light has been travelling for billions of years to get to earth, then we should be able to see portions of deep space, at the very limits of our most powerful telescopes, where there are blank areas, then later those blank areas become filled with more stellar objects—because the light from those distant stellar objects is just now reaching earth. But no one has ever seen anything like that.

Some arguments for relative youth of the universe (perhaps only 12,000 years):

1) Stellar nebulas are clouds of expanding “star stuff” from stars that have exploded. In no case has any stellar nebula been expanding for over 12,000 years.

2) Astrophysicists have analyzed the rings of Saturn and the smaller ones of some of the other outer gas giants in the solar system, and it has been determined that those ring systems are inherently unstable, and could not possibly persist for more than 12,000 years.

3) Short-period comets, that pass within the inner solar system, should all burn up and be vaporized by the sun in 12,000 years. In an attempt to explain how short-period comets could still exist, astrophysicists have postulated the existence of an “Oort Cloud” of cometary bodies that orbit one-half light year to a light year out from the sun, and have suggested that from time to time, large gravitational bodies pass through this Oort Cloud and disrupt it, sending some inward to replenish the short-period comets. BUT no one has ever confirmed the existence of the Oort Cloud, nor have any large gravitational bodies that could have disrupted it been detected.

4) Before the Apollo Moon landings, scientists were very concerned that since cosmic dust has (supposedly) been infalling on the Moon for billions of years, there could be a layer of dust on the lunar surface hundreds of feet thick, so that the lunar lander might sink down through it out of sight. This was taken so seriously that the early lunar landers had large, snow-shoe like disks on the ends of the landing struts. But the Apollo astronauts discovered that the layer of dust on the lunar surface was only one-half to three-fourths of an inch thick. The NASA website for Apollo 11 shows Buzz Aldrin standing beside landing strut of luna lander, showing snowshoe-like pad on landing strut, and Buzz Aldrin’s footprint.

5) God knows the end from the beginning. So He knew that the problem of sin would arise and have to be dealt with. Would God wait billions of years to face this problem, or did he decide to deal with it ASAP? Lucifer’s name suggests that he may have been the first angel God created.

It should be added that there are situations where the speed of light constant may be different. E=MC² represents what is involved in the conversion of matter to energy, which happens during nuclear decay. In that equation, C represents the speed of light in a vacuum. It has been found in the laboratory that radioactive isotopes, when heated to the plasma state, may have their rate of radioactive decay multiplied billions of times. In the case of lutetium, the rate of decay is actually increased trillions of times. Now, was not all matter in the universe in a plasma state for the first instant of Creation? Is it not likely that at the very moment of creation of the universe, God may have allowed the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum to be very different from what it is now? Materialists talk about a "Big Bang," in an effort to mock Creation. (But what they propose is even more absurd, the idea that without God, in the beginning was nothing, and then nothing exploded and became the ordered universe.) But Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; and numerous other texts say God "stretched out the heavens."

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://christiannews.net/2016/05/29/scientists-beginning-to-doubt-discovery-once-touted-as-evidence-for-evolution/

Scientists Beginning to Doubt Discovery Once Touted as Evidence for Evolution

By Garrett Haley on May 29, 2016390 Comments
2363 24 Share4 10 2409

quote:
An influential scientific discovery that was once celebrated as compelling evidence for evolution may require reinterpretation, according to a growing number of scientists and researchers.
In 2008, biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University jubilantly announced that he had witnessed a “major evolutionary innovation.”

Lenski, as part of his Long-Term Experimental Evolution (LTEE) project, had been carefully observing the bacteria Escherichia coli (E. coli) reproduce in a lab. Finally, after 20 years and 31,000 E. coli generations, Lenski noticed that one of the bacteria populations had seemingly mutated and acquired the ability to process the chemical citrate when oxygen was present.

Lenski detailed his findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and claimed that the E. coli development was a “fascinating case of evolution in action.” Other sources described the discovery as “dramatic” and “profound.”
“Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists,” reported the website NewScientist.com. The site also quoted evolution promoter Jerry Coyne as saying, “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events. That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”

Later, in a 2011 article in Microbe Magazine, Lenski wrote a “salute to Charles Darwin” and asserted that his LTEE project confirmed Darwin’s ideas. Then, in a 2012 journal article published in Nature, Lenski again drew attention to the supposed evolution of the E. coli bacteria, stating that the ability to process citrate was “a novel trait” made possible by evolution.

However, a growing number of scientists are now calling Lenski’s findings into question. In February, a journal article from the American Society for Microbiology written by a team of biologists from the University of Idaho rebutted one of Lenski’s central claims.

“Here we show why [Lenski’s discovery] probably was not a speciation event,” the biologists wrote. As it turns out, E. coli populations tested by the University of Idaho biologists rapidly acquired the ability to process citrate when oxygen was present. So it wasn’t a rare evolutionary event—it was simply the bacteria adapting to their environment.

“We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event,” the researchers wrote. “No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.”

Another journal article published this year by the American Society for Microbiology cast further doubt on the celebrated LTEE discovery and proposed that Lenski’s findings “may require interpretation.”

In a May 16 blog post, Dr. Jay Wile said these recent developments should come as no surprise. In fact, Wile noted, a Christian molecular geneticist—Dr. Georgia Purdom with Answers in Genesis—predicted that the E. coli in LTEE did not mutate. They simply adapted to function better in their environment.

“This was definitely not any kind of speciation event,” he wrote in reference to the E. coli adaptations. “Instead, the same genetic changes seen in the LTEE were achieved repeatedly after a short amount of time. This tells us that the ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen is the result of adaptive mutation, as predicted by Dr. Purdom nearly 8 years ago.”

Therefore, Dr. Wile wrote, these recent developments have “specifically confirmed a creationist prediction while, at the same time, falsifying an evolutionary one.”


Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quote from Aldous Huxley on his motive for rejecting Christian morality:

quote:
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

― Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means

Link: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/465563-i-had-motives-for-not-wanting-the-world-to-have

Of course, nothing lends itself better to the philosophy of meaninglessness than the theory (philosophy) of evolution.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Was Aldous Huxley a scientist, he asked, knowing the answer.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, you do not know the importance of Aldous Huxley to evolutionism's whole philosophy of science.

I said I could cite "proponents of evolution." Evolution is a philosophy, not a science.

[ November 23, 2016, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is am excellent statement concerning the philosophy of naturalism, which is at the heart of evolution theory. It is not written by an evolutionist scientist, but it states the issues succinctly and with inarguable reason:

quote:
Adapted from: Master's Seminary Journal Volume 13

Naturalism has replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western world. Though the teaching that natural evolutionary processes can account of the origin of all living species has never been proven, that teaching is central to the philosophy that now dominates Western scholarly thinking. Even evangelicals have become less willing to defend the early chapters of Genesis against the encroachments of evolutionary thought, although in actuality affirming an “old earth” theory and remaining evangelical is an inconsistency. A “framework” approach to those chapters does not square with a consistent hermeneutical approach to Scripture, because the first chapter of Genesis teaches that God created the world in a normal week of seven days. The purpose of evolution is to explain away the God of the Bible. The absurd teaching of the Big Bang theory of evolution is that nobody times nothing equals everything. It is a theory that raises an almost endless array of unsolvable problems. It is degrading to humanity, hostile to reasons, and antithetical to the truth that God has revealed. When one starts adapting the Word of God to fit scientific theories based on naturalistic beliefs, he has begun his journey on the road to skepticism.

Introduction

Thanks to the theory of evolution, naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society. Less than a century and a half ago, Charles Darwin popularized the credo for this secular religion with his book The Origin of Species. Although most of Darwin’s theories about the mechanisms of evolution were discarded long ago, the doctrine of evolution itself has managed to achieve the status of a fundamental article of faith in the popular modern mind. Naturalism has now replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western world, and evolution has become naturalism’s principal dogma.

Naturalism is the view that every law and every force operating in the universe is natural rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural. Naturalism is inherently anti-theistic, rejecting the very concept of a personal God. Many assume naturalism therefore has nothing to do with religion. In fact, it is a common misconception that naturalism embodies the very essence of scientific objectivity. Naturalists themselves like to portray their system as a philosophy that stands in opposition to all faith-based worldviews, pretending that it is scientifically and intellectually superior precisely because of its supposed non-religious character.

Not so. Religion is exactly the right word to describe naturalism. The entire philosophy is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—an a priori rejection of everything supernatural—requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all its supporting theories must be taken by faith as well.


Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like how the "scientific" arguments are riddled with "God did it." Real empirical that.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, NobleHunter, it is reasonable to you to say that "In the beginning there was nothing--no time, no space, no matter, no energy--and then suddenly nothing exploded and became the whole highly-ordered universe." Real empirical that!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
So, you do not know the importance of Aldous Huxley to your side's whole philosophy of science.

I said I could cite "proponents of evolution." Evolution is a philosophy, not a science.

I don't know much about him, actually. One thing I do know is that he's not what I challenged you to provide. Anyway, you were pretty shifty about who you could quote saying what. You went from talking about scientists to mere 'proponents' of evolution.

Still waiting for a scientist saying the things you said.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are plenty of such scientists--literally hundreds, even thousands of them. But you will not accept them, because they are Creationists. Scientists who are honest enough to admit the real reasons for clinging to evolution, usually throw out Darwin and embrace Intelligent Design, because they know it makes more sense, scientifically, and better explains all the observed evidence.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
So, NobleHunter, it is reasonable to you to say that "In the beginning there was nothing--no time, no space, no matter, no energy--and then suddenly nothing exploded and became the whole highly-ordered universe." Real empirical that!

I don't think that's how scientists describe the state of the universe prior to the big bang. I'd be surprised if there was any actual agreement on it.

All this, btw, has sfa to do with evolution. The theory of the Big Bang could be complete nonsense and it wouldn't matter one jot or tittle to the theory of evolution.

Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Samprimary, you said nothing substantive to counter my arguments and evidences. Once again, you are merely pretending you won a debate when you never did. Let anyone read through the thread and see for themselves who has the real weight of evidence behind him.

You said something essentially identical to this in several situations where you'd been pinned to the wall. This is your default way of saying "Yes, you owned me, but I will never admit it. Let anyone read the thread and decide for themselves!"

So ok, want to put it to a vote?

Let's have the thread vote on if I revealed your hypocrisy at all.

Want a vote?

(ron will come up with an excuse if the vote of active participants fails)

(no surprise)

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
So, NobleHunter, it is reasonable to you to say that "In the beginning there was nothing--no time, no space, no matter, no energy--and then suddenly nothing exploded and became the whole highly-ordered universe." Real empirical that!

It's not like you're accurately describing the big bang or any related cosmological origin theories but do you even literally understand that "the big bang" and "evolution" are two completely different things, the scientific falsifiability/observable evidence of which are not requisitely interconnected?

(ron does not understand this)

(ron will come up with a stupid argument that you have to accept both or something)

if you conflate evolutionary theory with abiogenesis/cosmological origin theory, you accomplish nothing; it is a stupid move.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2