Jump to content


Photo

Does Oil Really Take Millions Of Years To Form?


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#41 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 14 November 2006 - 11:33 PM

If evolution points you to a Creator. Then you are a theistic evolutionist. Agnostic means that you don't know, period. Because the moment you take sides, is the very moment you are not agnostic. And the only side I see you take is all that supports evolution. And the only time you really speak about God or faith, is when someone pins you down about it.

Example:
1) How much of creation do you ponder, or believe? 1% maybe?
2) How much of science and it's theory of evolution do you believe? 95%?

This is what I get from your posts, I see a mind already made up. I do not see a mind that is in question about what the truth is. You have already decided. How do I know? I have debated all types for almost 5 years. I have only seen two actual agnostics. They do not debate anywhere near the way you do. And they do not debate like any other person I have ever seen.

A person who vitually knows everything about one side of the issue, but knows virtually nothing about the other side. Nor do they really want to know. Is not agnostic.

View Post



I think you are misunderstanding my responses let me clarify them. Evolutionary theory, in its present form, is the best and most logical way to explain our natural world though natural mechanisms, that I firmly believe. I also believe that sciences only deals with the natural world, and makes no judgment on the existence or non-existence of god, I see science is independent of faith, not to be bent by the will of faith, or the other way around, so in this instance, yes you may call me what you will, an "evolutionist," a "scientist", whatever.

But when I comes to religion, it’s an entirely separate realm, here, science can’t observe, can’t test, can’t falsify results. Science has no bearing, neither does evolution. Evolution is the explanation of natural selection from the moment life came into being (abiogenists is highly speculative, even in science circles, at least the mechanisms involved), until present. I believe that like science, it has no bearing or religion.

With that said, you might ask, "if you think faith has no bearing on science, then why are you against creationism?" because creationism, by definition, relies on the actions of god to create. Therefore it is religion intruding into science.

It also goes the other way, most atheists believe that science (more specifically evolution) is a firm disproof of the existence of god, this in fact, requires as much faith as any other religion, and you cannot impart naturalistic ideas and limitations on a supernatural being. Thus science intruding into religion.

So therefore, I am totally agnostic about the existence of a god, and we will most likely never know it to any degree of certainty.

I hope this helps

#42 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 November 2006 - 12:40 AM

I think you are misunderstanding my responses let me clarify them. Evolutionary theory, in its present form, is the best and most logical way to explain our natural world though natural mechanisms, that I firmly believe. I also believe that sciences only deals with the natural world, and makes no judgment on the existence or non-existence of god, I see science is independent of faith, not to be bent by the will of faith, or the other way around, so in this instance, yes you may call me what you will, an "evolutionist," a "scientist", whatever.

But when I comes to religion, it’s an entirely separate realm, here, science can’t observe, can’t test, can’t falsify results. Science has no bearing, neither does evolution. Evolution is the explanation of natural selection from the moment life came into being (abiogenists is highly speculative, even in science circles, at least the mechanisms involved), until present. I believe that like science, it has no bearing or religion.

With that said, you might ask, "if you think faith has no bearing on science, then why are you against creationism?" because creationism, by definition, relies on the actions of god to create. Therefore it is religion intruding into science.

It also goes the other way, most atheists believe that science (more specifically evolution) is a firm disproof of the existence of god, this in fact, requires as much faith as any other religion, and you cannot impart naturalistic ideas and limitations on a supernatural being. Thus science intruding into religion.

So therefore, I am totally agnostic about the existence of a god, and we will most likely never know it to any degree of certainty.

I hope this helps

View Post


It does, which brings me to another question. If science is what you believe about origins, and Science cannot disprove God. And yet cannot find God either. Then how do you expect to ever find the truth on God, when science is actually your obstacle? And yet is the only way you will take information as being proven, is if it comes through what science will approve of. Which will "never" be anything that includes God.

It's like you accept the obstacle because you don't want to know.

#43 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2006 - 03:40 AM

You over simplify it, there is no theory that suggests a blob of primordial goop turned into a human spontaneously


:P :P :o :o :o :o :o

That's what NDT suggests, and if you don't realize that, then you really need to do some studying.

if you accept speciation, then tell me what mechanism is keeping you from extrapolating that... say... a few hundred thousand years, is it not inconceivable to suggest, that because these populations can no longer interbreed, and live in different habitats, that traits specific to the populations will continue building?


This type of genetic variation does not build "information" into the genome.

Furthermore; its been calculated and demonstrated in the lab, there there are boundaries to how much variation can take place in DNA before the protiens it codes for are usless. IOW, its your imagination that says there are no limits, but math, and lab experimenation say otherwise. You can read about that here.


The numerical concreteness of Sauer's and Yockey's results is breathtaking. When a skeptic sees a drawing of Mesonychid next to the Zeuglodon whale he intuitively realizes that the transformation is highly improbable. But how improbable? There is no way to put a quantitative measure on the difference between a dog-like animal and a whale, and believers in the relentless application of physical law take advantage of this by verbally minimizing the differences. The situation is otherwise with proteins. Because there is a discrete set of amino acids and a finite number of positions in a given protein, the odds of attaining a folded, functional protein can be calculated quite closely, but only if the tolerance of proteins to amino acid substitution is known. Thanks to Sauer and Yockey we now have such quantitative data.

It is important to realize that Sauer's and Yockey's results hold whether or not the system can replicate and is subject to Darwinian selection. The odds against finding a new functional protein structure remain astronomical in either case. This is because Darwinian selection can only discriminate based on function and, with the exception of those found in living organisms, virtually all protein sequences are functionless. An amino acid sequence can be replicated and mutated in living organisms till the cows come home and the odds are still 1 in 10&% that a new functional protein class will be produced.

The problem of the isolation of functional protein sequences is a vivid illustration of the truth of the symposium thesis,

Darwinism and neo-Darwinism as generally held and taught in our society carry with them an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism, which is essential to make a convincing case in their behalf.


The skeptic can accept Sauer's and Yockey's results with equanimity because his world is not necessarily limited to those phenomena that can be explained by naturalism. Furthermore, the skeptic can happily concede that many biological phenomena are explained by natural laws. He can agree that beak shape and wing color can change under selective pressure, or that different proteins in the same structural class, such as the alpha and beta chains of hemoglobin, may have arisen through Darwinistic mechanisms. But the believer in the universal application of physical law is stuck. He must maintain, against the evidence, that different protein classes, like cytochromes and immunoglobulins, found their way by raw luck through the vast, dark sea of nonfunctional sequences to the tiny islands of function we observe experimentally. He must maintain, without any evidence, that Mesonychid gave birth over time to the whale. And why, we ask, must he maintain these positions against impossible odds and without supporting evidence? Because, he replies, I can only measure material phenomena, and therefore nothing else exists.



Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other


These salamanders already look different only after a couple hundred years; and they have already split far enough to where they cannot interbreed. Is it impossible that you can magnify this to a hundred thousand, or a million years?? What would they look like then?

Probably a lot defend than they do now


This is where science turns into imagination. You can imagine that they will turn into birds or something, but scientific evidence is that they will just turn into other salamanders, or in the case of the Collecant, even after a supposed 350 million years, just another Collecanth.....

Terry

#44 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2006 - 02:09 PM

I have been looking into methods of directly dating natural oil samples, as most explanations are summaries of the status quo of how oil is formed, e.g. this from the wiki.

Most geologists view crude oil and natural gas, as the product of compression and heating of ancient organic materials over geological time. According to this theory, oil is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have been settled to the sea bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. (Terrestrial plants tend to form coal) Over geological time this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the remains to metamorphose, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis. Because most hydrocarbons are lighter than rock or water, these sometimes migrate upward through adjacent rock layers until they become trapped beneath impermeable rocks, within porous rocks called reservoirs. Concentration of hydrocarbons in a trap forms an oil field, from which the liquid can be extracted by drilling and pumping.


Or this from ‘live science’

So how long does this process take?

Scientists aren't really sure, but they figure it's probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.


However from this article from Stanford University direct methods for dating natural oil deposits are being researched

Their dating system measures the relative amount of an organic compound, oleanane, in the oil. Oleanane is highly associated with the angiosperms, flowering plants that have evolved and spread since the early Cretaceous. Many flowering plants produce derivatives of oleanane, called oleanoids, that are toxic to predators.

Because angiosperms become more plentiful as time progresses, younger organic deposits that are converted into oil are likely to contain more angiosperms. Because the geological processes involved convert the oleanoids in the angiosperms into oleanane, the more oleanane found in a given oil sample, the more recent it is likely to be.

The method is not a very precise yardstick. Oils of any age can lack oleanane if flowering plants were not part of the material from which it formed. But lack of oleanane is a significant clue that the oil may have formed in the Jurassic or older times, before angiosperms evolved. If the compound is present in relatively small amounts, the crude is almost certainly Cretaceous or younger. If it contains large amounts of the organic substance, on the other hand, its pedigree most likely dates from the post-Cretaceous or Tertiary Age (65 million to 5 million years ago).



#45 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 15 November 2006 - 05:01 PM

Then how do you expect to ever find the truth on God, when science is actually your obstacle?
It's like you accept the obstacle because you don't want to know.

View Post


Science is neither an obstacle nor a help, it has no influence on the existence or non-existence of a non-interfering god. It is totally separate from the question, because by the definition of science, it tries to solve natural problems by natural means. Where if any supposed creator exists, it is supernatural, therefore is not in any way within the realm of science, and vice versa.

Believe me, it would be allot easier to just accept literal biblical interpretation and submit to creationism, everything is already worked out for you; there is no real reason to question anything because it can all be found in the bible. I tried that once, but for some reason my conscience could not allow it, I could not really deep down make myself believe that the world was created in 6000 years. so I questioned, did allot of thinking and learning on my own, and finally came to the conclusion that no, overwhelming evidence, from several independent areas researching independently of one another in science, geology, cosmology, atomic theory, biology, physics, all converged on the same conclusion, that the world much older than previously thought.

#46 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 15 November 2006 - 05:19 PM

:o  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o

That's what NDT suggests, and if you don't realize that, then you really need to do some studying.

Nay, I think it is you who does not understand the situation, notice the operative word "spontaneously"; many creationists misunderstand this and think that those silly scientists believe that somehow randomly we went from goup to human just like that. No one believes this I can confidently say, it is non-sensual because the probabilities explained my many creationists have thrown that the probabilities are astronomically small.

in a quite short(which I know you’ll disagree with), random mutations occur in the gene pool making variations in the population, nature favors a certain segment of the population because that trait allows them to more easily reproduce, therefore, a once minor variation in the genetic makeup becomes the norm.

This process is called natural selection witch is TOTALLY non-random

this then happens, over and over and over again, changing the look and nature of the creature, populations get separated because of natural means and no longer interbreed, these separate populations then diverge genetically and form new species that cant interbreed.



This type of genetic variation does not build "information" into the genome. 

Furthermore; its been calculated and demonstrated in the lab, there there are boundaries to how much variation can take place in DNA before the protiens it codes for are usless. IOW, its your imagination that says there are no limits, but math, and lab experimenation say otherwise.  You can read about that here.
Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other
This is where science turns into imagination.  You can imagine that they will turn into birds or something, but scientific evidence is that they will just turn into other salamanders, or in the case of the Collecant, even after a supposed 350 million years, just another Collecanth.....

Terry

View Post


i dont have the time at the monent(english paper), and im not well versed in this i admit, ill will take a look at it later and respond, but from the surface reading looks quite interesting to say the least

#47 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 November 2006 - 05:58 PM

Science is neither an obstacle nor a help, it has no influence on the existence or non-existence of a non-interfering god. It is totally separate from the question, because by the definition of science, it tries to solve natural problems by natural means. Where if any supposed creator exists, it is supernatural, therefore is not in any way within the realm of science, and vice versa.

Believe me, it would be allot easier to just accept literal biblical interpretation and submit to creationism, everything is already worked out for you; there is no real reason to question anything because it can all be found in the bible.  I tried that once, but for some reason my conscience could not allow it, I could not really deep down make myself believe that the world was created in 6000 years. so I questioned, did allot of thinking and learning on my own, and finally came to the conclusion that no, overwhelming evidence, from several independent areas researching independently of one another in science, geology, cosmology, atomic theory, biology, physics, all converged on the same conclusion, that the world much older than previously thought.

View Post


1) There is nothing easy about creation, unless you allow someone else to do all the work for you. And then accept his opinions on what he has done.
2) I have been studying creation for more than four years. My website reflects the different directions I have gone. Why do the stuff myself? I was not satisfied with what was being said by other creationist. A lot of their views sounded more like guesses. I wanted something that really meshed with the word of God. And something that would help me understand God's power in creation.
3) The God did it, was not enough. I have the faith to believe God did it, but I wanted to know how. And then relate that to other people.
4) My studies have brought views that even most creationist did not agree with. Or have never heard.
5) And most all of it is backed up in the word of God. Which is what was lacking in other views

Accepting information from only the natural side of creation, excludes God automatically. So by doing this, you have made a decision not to want to know God, by shutting out the only way He can speak to you.

Accepting old earth, by natural means only. Denies the existence of eternity. And the power of God to create through this realm of eternity. Do you believe there is a possibility of a parallel universe? What do you think heaven and hell is? They are not parallel as in a sense as being the same as our realm. But they do exist.

Question:
When time was created (in the beginning). What made time different before sin, and then after?

Sin is what gave us the curse of death. So if there was no death before the first sin. What does that make time like between Genesis 1 until Eve sinned? It made time eternal. For time without death = time eternal. Once death was part of the picture, time was as we see it now.

So what this means is that there is a time in which eternity exists, but we can't test it because of sin. But, all of creation was created within this eternal time period. Which explains why something can be created with age (of old) but without the passage of time.

Psalm 102:25 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

How do you lay an old foundation, unless age was added to it? So what we see here is that eternal time, which was before the first sin, enables a creation of age with no passage of time. But, this type of creation is never repeated after the first sin.

So we have a creation of earth, which was a foundation made of old (age without passage of time). Because time before the first sin was eternal. Just as all animals were made fully formed, and of age to multiply. And Adam and Eve were made fully formed and with age.

So not only was earth made with foundation of old. But the first created man and woman were made the same way. In fact, all of creation was made the same way.

Sin is the reason man was made last. If man would have been made first, and sinned before creation was over. How would have that affected a creation where one part could be made old (age without passage of time), then another part made young because time is no longer eternal?

Lets look at this in a natural sense so that you may understand better.

How would a universe, where everything dates the same work together?
1) Could we live on a 6 thousand year old planet? Nope, it would be to hot.
2) Could we orbit and live next to a 6 thousand year old sun? Nope, it would be unstable.
3) Could we live among other planets that were 6 thousand years old? Nope, their gravity would vary, which could mess up our orbit as well.

So to make all of these things not a problem. God created, and laid, a foundational age, of each created object, so that they will work together.

So what is the creation formula of God?
1) The earth laid with a foundational age of 4.5 billions years was required to create life.
2) A star laid with the foundational age that would make it stable, is required to sustain life.
3) And a solar system that has a foundational age laid for each object, is required for earth to maintain it's orbit, so it can maintain the life created upon it.

How else do you explain varying ages among things that actually came about 18 billion years ago?

#48 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2006 - 07:34 PM

in a quite short(which I know you’ll disagree with), random mutations occur in the gene pool making variations in the population, nature favors a certain segment of the population because that trait allows them to more easily reproduce, therefore, a once minor variation in the genetic makeup becomes the norm.


What living thing was supposedly the starting point for all that life came from? A bird, a snake, what?????

Terry

#49 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 16 November 2006 - 01:53 AM

1) There is nothing easy about creation, unless you allow someone else to do all the work for you. And then accept his opinions on what he has done.


Which, I'm afraid, is what most creationists do. But then, we all stand on the shoulders of others.

2) I have been studying creation for more than four years. My website reflects the different directions I have gone. Why do the stuff myself? I was not satisfied with what was being said by other creationist. A lot of their views sounded more like guesses. I wanted something that really meshed with the word of God. And something that would help me understand God's power in creation.


Certainly commendable. However, not a scientific approach.

Accepting information from only the natural side of creation, excludes God automatically. So by doing this, you have made a decision not to want to know God, by shutting out the only way He can speak to you.


Are you saying that God is only able to speak through scipture? How do you get that idea?


Accepting old earth, by natural means only. Denies the existence of eternity. And the power of God to create through this realm of eternity.


I disagree. The fact that the universe seems to function according the the laws of physics does not exclude a creator.

Do you believe there is a possibility of a parallel universe? What do you think heaven and hell is? They are not parallel as in a sense as being the same as our realm. But they do exist.


Correction: You belive they exist.

Question:
When time was created (in the beginning). What made time different before sin, and then after?


I have no idea. I don't think sin has anything to do with time at all.

So we have a creation of earth, which was a foundation made of old (age without passage of time). Because time before the first sin was eternal. Just as all animals were made fully formed, and of age to multiply. And Adam and Eve were made fully formed and with age.


Yes, creationism appears to imply that. At least if you want it to make logical sense.

How would a universe, where everything dates the same work together?
1) Could we live on a 6 thousand year old planet? Nope, it would be to hot.
2) Could we orbit and live next to a 6 thousand year old sun? Nope, it would be unstable.
3) Could we live among other planets that were 6 thousand years old? Nope, their gravity would vary, which could mess up our orbit as well.

So to make all of these things not a problem. God created, and laid, a foundational age, of each created object, so that they will work together.


Or, He created the universe 18 billion years ago, and things really have their apparant age.

Hans

#50 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 November 2006 - 05:53 AM

Or, He created the universe 18 billion years ago, and things really have their apparant age.


If I say that God created things with age, but without time. The usual evolutionist response is that God lies because He made a deceptive creation, correct?

But evolutionists say that even though everything came from an exploding object 18 billion years ago. That it is ok for all objects to have varying ages? Even though none of them will date back to the original object they came from?

So in one sense, the explaination for varying ages is accepted, even though there is really no explaination.

In the other sense, one is rejected on the sole reason that it includes a super natural Creator. And it is only for that reason, even though how things date, fits a Creator who had a formula to make it all work as one.

And there is no scientific law that can explain how each object just happens to be just right, for the whole solar system to allow one planet to sustain life. When everything that is around it, can change and destroy all life as we know it. And everything is always changing, which proves my point even more.

#51 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 16 November 2006 - 06:29 AM

Or, He created the universe 18 billion years ago, and things really have their apparant age.


If I say that God created things with age, but without time.

View Post


could you please explain the reasons for this belief?

#52 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 16 November 2006 - 06:57 AM

5) And most all of it is backed up in the word of God. Which is what was lacking in other views


This is what I think the essence of the debate comes down to. Its not about the evidence, it is not about the supposed errors in radiometric dating, or the faulty conclusions about evolution that many people draw, it is solely about this one thing,

You see... science, fundamentally is a study of natural phenomena though natural means. this means foremost in this case, falsifiability, if you make a conjecture that god created the earth with an apparent age of 4.5 billion years, but in actuality you say that it is only 6000 years old, this conjecture cannot be tested, it could not be potentially falsified because whenever you test anything, you always have the response "god made it APEAR this old, but its actually much younger." now, I am not saying in any way that this belief is wrong, what I am saying is that it should not be covered up, twisted with big words, then called science. It is fundamentally belief in every shape and form, and should be treated as such.

I also think this is a good example about the differences between how creationists and scientists in general think differently on a fundamental level, scientists assume that all natural phenomena are caused by natural means (since this is the only cause of said phenomena that has ever been observed), whereas creationists first and foremost believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, and all evidence must support this


I hope this does not offend anyone; it is in no way an attempt to

#53 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 November 2006 - 07:00 AM

could you please explain the reasons for this belief?

View Post


You can basucally read about it here: http://www.yecheadqu...ation9.0.3.html

#54 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 November 2006 - 07:07 AM

This is what I think the essence of the debate comes down to. Its not about the evidence, it is not about the supposed errors in radiometric dating, or the faulty conclusions about evolution that many people draw, it is solely about this one thing,

You see... science, fundamentally is a study of natural phenomena though natural means. this means foremost in this case, falsifiability, if you make a conjecture that god created the earth with an apparent age of 4.5 billion years, but in actuality you say that it is only 6000 years old, this conjecture cannot be tested, it could not be potentially falsified because whenever you test anything, you always have the response "god made it APEAR this old, but its actually much younger." now, I am not saying in any way that this belief is wrong, what I am saying is that it should not be covered up, twisted with big words, then called science. It is fundamentally belief in every shape and form, and should be treated as such.


But science has not come up with a real explaination for how things that come from an object 18 billions years old, can date only 4.5 billion years. That in itself is an admission to not really knowing how old everything is.

I also think this is a good example about the differences between how creationists and scientists in general think differently on a fundamental level, scientists assume that all natural phenomena are caused by natural means (since this is the only cause of said phenomena that has ever been observed), whereas creationists first and foremost believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, and all evidence must support this
I hope this does not offend anyone; it is in no way an attempt to

View Post


Why would you think it was offending anyone?

#55 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 16 November 2006 - 08:29 AM

Or, He created the universe 18 billion years ago, and things really have their apparant age.


If I say that God created things with age, but without time. The usual evolutionist response is that God lies because He made a deceptive creation, correct?


I have seen that reaction, yes. I would say He created a universe where things are not whatthey seem to be.

But evolutionists say that even though everything came from an exploding object 18 billion years ago. That it is ok for all objects to have varying ages? Even though none of them will date back to the original object they came from?


Ehr... I don't get this argument. I'm older than my son, and younger than my grandfather. What's the problem?

So in one sense, the explaination for varying ages is accepted, even though there is really no explaination.

In the other sense, one is rejected on the sole reason that it includes a super natural Creator. And it is only for that reason, even though how things date, fits a Creator who had a formula to make it all work as one.


I'm sorry, I simply don't know what you mean by this. The universe started (or was created, we really don't know) 18 billion years ago, but that obviously doesn't mean everything in it has to be that old.

And there is no scientific law that can explain how each object just happens to be just right, for the whole solar system to allow one planet to sustain life. When everything that is around it, can change and destroy all life as we know it. And everything is always changing, which proves my point even more.


Ahh, that line of argumentation. Well, I guess it is OK to have it in this thread. Yes isn't it fantastic that just OUR planet of who knows how many thousand - or millions happens to support life? Wait! We ARE life. Even if there was only one planet in the universe capable of supporting life, that's where WE would be.

And isn't it fantastic that there is so much water on Earth, when life is so dependent on water, and just this temperature range? Wait! Life evolved (according to us evos :o ) here on Earth, so of course it fits the conditions here. It's not Earth that fits life, it's the other way around (partly, think of the Gaya theory).

Hans

#56 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 16 November 2006 - 08:34 AM

But science has not come up with a real explaination for how things that come from an object 18 billions years old, can date only 4.5 billion years. That in itself is an admission to not really knowing how old everything is.

As already said, I don't get this one. What makes you think that everything should be of equal age? This doesn't make sense at all.


Why would you think it was offending anyone?


It's just that I have sometimes seen people be offended by posts (by other posters) that I didn't find particularly offending, so I just wanted to make sure. Better safe than sorry.


Hans

#57 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 November 2006 - 08:55 AM

Ehr... I don't get this argument. I'm older than my son, and younger than my grandfather. What's the problem?


What is the difference in something alive, and something that is not? So wrong comparison, but you knew that.

If you take a rock that dates 18 billion years old. Blow it up (like big bang). Is there any part of that same rock that is going to now date 4.5 billion years old? And for what scientific reason would you say that?

#58 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 17 November 2006 - 05:24 AM

If you take a rock that dates 18 billion years old. Blow it up (like big bang). Is there any part of that same rock that is going to now date 4.5 billion years old? And for what scientific reason would you say that?

View Post


The Big Bang doesn't theorize an explosion of matter. Big Bang is a poor name for what the theory states. The theory is that a singularity expanded (and continues to expand) - the singularity wasn't matter - that came into existence later.

#59 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 November 2006 - 03:37 PM

The Big Bang doesn't theorize an explosion of matter.  Big Bang is a poor name for what the theory states.  The theory is that a singularity expanded (and continues to expand) - the singularity wasn't matter - that came into existence later.

View Post


What was it? Supossedly....

Terry

#60 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 November 2006 - 10:55 PM

What was it?  Supossedly....

Terry

View Post


This is just denial. If a creationist asks a question on the core issue, and it really makes the theory not look so great. Either part of the theory will be denied to make the creationists comment look stupid, or the definition of the theory is redone for the same purpose. Evolutionists gets to make their own reality, so they are never wrong. :lol:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users