Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by will_ebert, Jun 23, 2002.
The middle option was correct. And I do not believe in evolution. I know it is a fact.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
how do you know that the middle one is correct?
No you don't.
Genuine evolution takes more like millions of years.
Note: There are six states of matter, not three.
six, not four
I have concocted my own "doctrine" pertaining to the esoteric and troublesome origins of humanity"
I believe that a group of intrepid and rather ambitious entities with abilities and aptitudes we would regard as divine become extremely inebriated by imbibing some exotic alien nourishment and decided to create a vibrant, inquisitive, and intellectual race in the most remote and mundane region of the cosmos conceivable. Thus, we came to be. Now we, being the unaware victims of an astronomical joke, are doomed to vainly question our existence.
"There are six states of matter, not three."
There are actually infinite states of matter. I know what he means by three states, but what are "the" six states of matter? I've only heard of four, not counting bose-einstein condensate (which I think is one.. or are there 2 types of condensate?)
"The middle option was correct. And I do not believe in evolution. I know it is a fact."
You mean you THINK the middle option is correct. This is a poll of opinion not of reason (given that god defies all reason in the first place).
There is plenty of evidence out there to refute evolution, the problem is it gets swept under the rug so fast that no one learns about it. In my opinion evolution is just a tax supported religion. The evolutionists bible is the geological column (may not have spelled that right) and it doesn't exsist anywhere. There is no evidence for evolution and there never will be.
which evidence might that be?
You do realize that you will go to hell for telling lies don't you?
Well one good piece of evidence is the fact that there are petrified trees standing up through multiple layers of rock... I find it hard to believe that a tree would stand up for millions of years while sediments filled in around it. The grand canyon couldn't have been formed by the colorodo river because it cuts right through the Kiabab Uplift. The river would have had to flow up-hill in order to form Grand Canyon. There are also a number of "limiting factors" that limit the earths age to less than 6500 years. Yes, thats not a typo, I said 6500 years. The oldest tree in the world is only 4400 years old. And as far as the geological column goes, it's just circular reasoning. They date the rocks based on what fossils are in them and then they turn around and date the fossils based on what rock layer they came from. And no I'm not going to hell because that wasnt a lie, plus I'm a Christian.
uh...earth is 6500 years old?
uh...because the oldest living tree is only 4400 years old?
Wouldn't the earth be a lot hotter if it was only 6500 years old? I would imagine that much of the surface would be still molten rock!
What meaning are people putting on the word evolution here? I think its important to get that out of the way first. Like, can evolution happen? The answer to that must be yes. Does evolution happen? Again the answer must be yes. But I think many people here are questioning whether Homo Sapiens has evolved from a single celled organism some 3 billion years ago, am I correct?
well, for one thing, the earth wouldn't be any hotter now because it was never a piece of molten rock to begin with. There are 6 different types of evolution and only 1 type is true and is a scientific fact, that type is micro evolution a.k.a. variations. Those happen all the time but never produce a different kind of animal. Some other facts to ponder...
The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.
The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.
The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.
Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.
Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.
All the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.
Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.
The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution
A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.
The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years.
The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years.
The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old.
The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old.
Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years
Well I think this post is long enough, I can also disprove the big bang theory if you want...
I'll make a short post for you:
I'm not familiar with radiometric dating but all of the information I gave directly points to a young earth. Also you may want to look here:
It is nice to know that you question the laws of physics.
for your 4400 year old tree:
And another nice article explaining why your objections to carbon dating are not very convincing
How was I questioning the law of physics? My evidence was based on what we can observe in nature, while the age of the rocks mentioned in your article was based on a man made formula prone to error.
you deny the validity of radiometric dating which is based on the laws of physics.
You have made no observation that the earth is 6500 years old. You read it in the bible (hearsay).
What did you observe?
You observed that the oldest living tree is 4400 years old. I pointed out that if you combine the rings of different trees you can easily go back 9000 years. That is an observation that is hardly questionable. There is no room for error here. No fancy machines needed or formulas. You could even go out and check it for yourself. Basically it already kills your entire argument that the earth is 6500 years old (which isn't even an observation).
Separate names with a comma.