I think you should be banned because your arguments are a waste of everyone's time. Counter productive. We have to back track and revise things we are already 100% certain about just to get some snail up to speed.
You need to go to Europe and get a proper education. That is all I can say. We already established that your 6500 year old earth is not a valid theory because there are different sets of data that suggest it is at least 9000 years old, and probably billions years old. 6500 is not between 9000 and a few billion. Hence it is not an option. Remember that we established 9000 years on the same principle as you established that the oldest tree is 4400 years old. By counting year rings. That is scientific reasoning. Now the ball is in your court and you have to come up with something better than an analogy.
The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old. Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught. The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years. The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly. Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation. The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils. Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years. The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.)
lets stick with one topic. We are not rabbits here jumping from one thing to the other. You claimed previously that the earth was 6500 years old. We now have seen that it can't be. It is definitely older. Now you would like to disclaim it is billions of years old. You now present a random list (probably copied from somewhere else). This is not how a discussion goes. I can give you a million references to scientific articles that have as a topic 'evolution'. Should I present this list and let you go through them all and refute them all? No, because it rather impolite to do so. We don't have an unlimited time. We had already established that radiometric dating suggests is billions of years old. Clearly your list must be false or the results of radiometric dating are wrong. So you proof that radiometric dating is wrong. (Several of your arguments on your list are refuted in the link I gave earlier. That doesn't give a very good impression on the overal quality of your list, or your willingness to discuss matters)
I still beleive that the earth is less than 6500 years old. How did all the matter get here anyway? Do evolutionist still believe in the big bang?
You believe that the earth is 6500 years old, despite obvious scientific evidence that it is older? Why bother posting in a scientific forum then? Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. Evolution is a theory that explains the diversity of life.
radont84 There is no use in answering your questions any further, you didn't even acknowledge the answers already provided for you - instead you ignored them and continued to copy and paste more creationist ignorance. You are a troll, go away.
Please, doctor! No-one should be banned unless they are being offensive. Radont raises some interesting issues, though I believe his overall point is wrong and many of his facts are erroneous.
And that is absolutely, totally, entirely the bottom line. So. Is there anything we can actually do for you? Who else voted 6500 years? Go on, show yourselves! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Dee Cee
Back to evolution. Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary changes are extremely slow. The fossil evidence says just the opposite. One species 100,000+ years and then over the span of 10 thousand years. Poof a new species. The evolutionist does not have a single fossil with intermediate changes. The closest one that I have heard of is the bird with scales and feathers. (Auchorix ?) Just one problem is that it has perfect feathers and perfect scales. All the other examples are just selection from a trait that exists in the population. We share 90% of our genes with chimps that leaves quiet a variety of genes to express.
Can I recomend a reading of Darwin? Let us have some inteligent, educated supposing please. There are some rationality genes which apparently most of you in here did in fact Not inherit - be it from chimp or any other life form. Perhaps you fell in the amoeba gene pool? - no i'll not resort to insults, sorry. aaaaaaany-how: Mr. Radont: Theories aren't just guesses. Hypothesis are. Theories have scientific basings, assumed knowledge and a somewhat large amount of proof behind it. Theories are accepted as true, by definition. The idea that "theory" means speculation is a misuse of the word. That's what "hypothesis" is there for. Along with a thorough reading of Darwin can I also recomend a consultation of an encyclopaedic dictionary? Thanks.
one last thing... even if the world is 6500 years old... does that rule out evolution? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! actually, check that... yeah it does.. not enough time for it... unless the first few billion years got processed in a soup factory and now come "condensed". 6500 is just unreasonable, and quite random.
Radont: I actually read that link you gave, or rather read about a bit over a third before I could stand no more. Let's see what dr dino has to say... Exactly who is it that assumes this? I'd say only the good dr and his creationist flunkies. This is a patently ridiculous statement. From there it seems to go into a listing of various fraudulent archeological finds down the years. Who do you think debunked these fakes? I'd guess other archeologists. The science keeps itself in check. Who's keeping dr dino in check? Frankly, I gave up at this point. None of these frauds are any news to the science. I learned about most of them while learning about all the others that weren't frauds. People that swallow this tripe make me sick. It's obviously simply grasping at straws trying to prop their more and more unlikely view of the world. Science is crafted piece by piece, one thing building on another. If something is determined false then it is thrown out (usually), and everything that depends on it is thrown out. But you fundamentalist can't simply throw out your heirlooms of wisdom handed down from primitive tribes that knew next to nothing about the world in which they lived and desperately told themselves stories to make themselves feel wise. But I don't think he radont should be banned. Free speech and all that. You don't have to argue with him if you don't want to. Someone else alway will Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But jaded flower are we not all part of the amoebae gene pool according to evolution? Which part of Darwin specifically? I have stated that I am willing to believe in selection just not in evolution. Show me some facts to back up your theories. I know why I believe what I believe. Do you know why you believe what you believe? Until I see evidence that convinces me otherwise evolution is just an unsupported hypothesis. Show me some proof.
First: The poll is absurd. It lack many other options, as “Evolution exists, but we know very little about it – and we know about God as much as we do about evolution”. Second: We know little about evolution, but we know a little more about involution – and as involution is another form of evolution, then there are grounds to think evolution could exist in the way we know it. Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1984 an excellent book called “Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes”, (Further Reflections on Natural History), and in page 313, inside chapter 24, “Phyletic Size Decrease in Hershey Bars”, he says, and I quote:<dir>“I am a paleontologist –one of those oddballs who parlayed his childhood fascination for dinosaurs into a career. We search the history of life for repeated patterns, mostly without success. One generality that works more often than it fails is called “Cope’s rule of phyletic size increase.” For reasons yet poorly specified, body size tends to increase fairly steadily within evolutionary lineages.” … “The opposite phenomenon of gradual size decrease is surpassingly rare. There is a famous foram (a single-celled marine creature) that got smaller and smaller before disappearing entirely. An extinct, but once a major group, the graptolites (floating, colonial marine organisms, perhaps related to vertebrates) began life with a large number of “stipes” (branches bearing a row of individuals). The number of “stipes” then decreased progressively in several lineages, to eight, four, and two, until all surviving graptolites possessed but a single “stipe”. Then they disappeared.”</dir>So it is a well know fact that some organisms involved (or evolved back?) until they couldn’t adapt to their environment and died. This is also something that has to do with the called “biochron”, or the time lapse for any species to exist on Earth (or anywhere else). As an example, as some renown ethologists claim, the biochron of whales is reaching its end. They say whales are “traitors” of the mammal species, returned to the oceans, and couldn’t fully readapt to the old environment, so whales are doomed for extinction because their own stupidity, and not for other reasons. It is a theory, of course, but it is worth mentioning. Evolution exists for sure, and that’s been proven by involution - we know it is an involution or a “wrong change” because it didn’t succeed and provoked extinction. But the concept of "evolution” does not rule out many other external factors, ie, ancient extraterrestrial tampering with primate genes, or something weird as that. The world is huge, and full of surprises, so why rule out any unknown possibilities? But we must rule out the “6500 or 9000 years old world”, because there is enough evidence of geological periods that takes Earth's history 4.5 billion years back. Anyhow, I would advise of separating religion from science because they don’t mix well. Religion is based on beliefs, while science (or knowledge), rely on facts born from continuous and repeated observation. You "belive" in God although you have never seen him, and have no hard evidence of his existance. It means you infer his existence from other things, old wrintings and traditions, visions, reasoning, etc, that is, "circumstantial evidence"; while you "know" scientific facts because you can see, smell, hear, touch, taste, and measure them. Facts are solid, religious beliefs are abstract, a fabrication of the mind. Personally, I belive in God, but have no solid proof of it.
You have written the answer in your question. As I said in my last post, “facts” are different from “beliefs”. But while FACTS may lead you into believing in something, BELIFS will lead you NOT to any facts or evidences. Beliefs are self-supporting. They don't need external or additional evidence. Answering to you question: “Do you know why you believe what you believe?” – Yes I know why I believe. Most of what I believe is a product of observation. Science is based on observation and replication. I acknowledge that some part of my beliefs have no factual basis or scientific evidence – and that’s called SUPERSTITION. Fortunately, my superstitious beliefs are quite few, and date back from my childhood – as the belief in God. And as that belief has no caused me any problem, I do not want to get rid of it. But don’t talk to me about churches – the economic exploitation of religions – because I don’t believe in any CULT. The world is already full of “CARGO CULTS” , and most problems in the world stem from there. Gullible people who believe in something that some crooks tells them they must believe in – if they want to save their souls, or the whales, the ozone layer, the environment, or the planet, or whatever. There should be a law for protecting Man against his own stupidity.
No one should be protected from their own stupidity. How else will they learn without consequences? Facts may also lead you to question something as well. It is a fact that every system heads toward the lowest state. Although I do not attend a cult regularly I do not believe that most of this world's problems are caused by them. I believe that most of this world's problems are caused by a lack of opportunities for those who do not have a piece of the pie to get a piece. Most churches try to change this one person at a time. Just because you believe a theory to be true does not make it true. It is a fact that evolution contradicts thermal dynamics. Until there is evidence that modifies the laws of thermal dynamics it is just a theory not a fact.
Thermal dynamics has three principles. Which one of these principles is contradicted by the evolutionary theory? And how? I have a fairly good understanding of Physics and chemistry, but cannot imagine in which way this could happen. Do you imply an evolutionary change means some energy was created from nowhere? Mutations are evolutions, and they happen, we like it or not… I agree that some people should be left to face the consequences of their own, individual stupidity, but the law I suggest is for protecting innocent people from the stupidity of politicians and other people gathered in organizations of any kind. But I guess what I suggest is Utopia. The word "Stupid" comes from ancient Greece, meaning "those who vote".
Take any biology book. You’ll see that in ancient times wheat was a different variety from the present one. Although the latest varieties are genetically modified by man, there still are different wheat varieties in the world that have been “evolving” naturally. The same with rice, corn, and especially potatoes: there are in Bolivia (and the rest of Andean countries) about 100 natural varieties of potatoes, all originating from an ancient original species. Now you have your proof. Now what?
