quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

looks like some unscholarly liars to me!

quote:

It should be recognized that it is impossible to determine with certainty any date prior to the beginning of historical records—except, of course, by divine revelation. Science, in the proper sense, is based on observation, and we have no records of observation except historical records. Natural processes can be used to estimate prehistoric dates, but not to determine such dates. The accuracy of the estimates will depend on the validity of the assumptions applied to the use of the processes in making such calculations....

(what follows are bunches of equations dealing with the assumptions)

Thus, it is concluded that the weight of all the scientific evidence favors the view that the earth is quite young, far too young for life and man to have arisen by an evolutionary process. The origin of all things by special creation—already necessitated by many other scientific considerations—is therefore also indicated by chronometric data.

Finally, the reader should note that these conclusions were reached with no reference at all to the testimony of the Bible relative to chronology...

[and this is something that should be viewed at the website]

TABLE I Uniformitarian Estimates—Age of the Earth
Unless otherwise noted, based on standard assumptions of closed systems, constant rates, and no initial daughter components.
http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth/

quote:

"Evidence for a Young World"

quote:

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation....

http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/

quote:

and then from the biblical perspective:

quote:

There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading many Christians to conclude that it just doesn’t matter. In this article, I will explain and give a brief defense of the young-earth creationist view as the only proper understanding of Scripture. All other views are compromise with error. I will also explain some of the reasons why this matters for all Christians...

The Bible clearly teaches the young-earth creationist view of Genesis 1–11. That was the almost universal belief of the church for 1800 years. Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolutionism in all their various forms (day-age view, gap theory, framework hypothesis, analogical days view, local flood view, etc.) are recent and novel interpretations that will not stand up to scrutiny with an open Bible. A growing body of overwhelming scientific evidence also shows that evolution and millions of years are religiously motivated myths masquerading as scientific fact.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/young-earth/young-earth-creationist-view-summarized-and-defended/

quote:


nah, that guy's not scholarly either and we'll just dismiss that statement as part of a lie and not actually have to critique it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Are we witnessing the contemporary equivalent of theologians arguing over the number of angels that could fit on the point of a needle?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Funny thing about the people that deny science when it concerns the age of the Universe, they will accept the science concerning behind explaining how long the areas contaminated by nuclear weapon testing will be unsafe for humans, which happens to be the same science that proves the age of the Earth, i.e radioactive decay.

They accept how long radioactive waste from nuclear power plants will be dangerous, and the science that explains it, but again deny the same science when it applies to the decay of elements in the very rock that composes the planet.

But, ask any of them, the simple question:

If god set up all this in nature, and basically set it down as 'law' and even the bible goes into detail how God will not violate his own rules, why then, did he violate the rules he created for nature?

To be honest, Genisis follows the model of creation, or would if you rearrange a the steps:

Per Genesis:
Day one: Night and day
Day two: Sky and sea
Day three: Land and vegetation
Day Four: Stars, Sun and Moon
Day Five – Sea creatures including fish and Birds
Day Six – Animals and Mankind


Now if you were to rearrange the order, you can make the simplified Genesis account of creation fit the scientific model for the creation of the Universe, and Earth, although birds would move to day six, when you account for evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Are we witnessing the contemporary equivalent of theologians arguing over the number of angels that could fit on the point of a needle?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It all seems to silly to argue against the principle that life adapts to its environment - something that we all see and do everyday, something that we see others doing everyday and something that we see occurring in the 'natural' world all the time. Evolution is simply one way of describing and recording how these adaptions have resulted in the endless diversity and complexity of life as we see it today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Funny thing about the people that deny science when it concerns the age of the Universe, they will accept the science concerning behind explaining how long the areas contaminated by nuclear weapon testing will be unsafe for humans, which happens to be the same science that proves the age of the Earth, i.e radioactive decay.

They accept how long radioactive waste from nuclear power plants will be dangerous, and the science that explains it, but again deny the same science when it applies to the decay of elements in the very rock that composes the planet.

But, ask any of them, the simple question:

If god set up all this in nature, and basically set it down as 'law' and even the bible goes into detail how God will not violate his own rules, why then, did he violate the rules he created for nature?

To be honest, Genisis follows the model of creation, or would if you rearrange a the steps:

Per Genesis:
Day one: Night and day
Day two: Sky and sea
Day three: Land and vegetation
Day Four: Stars, Sun and Moon
Day Five – Sea creatures including fish and Birds
Day Six – Animals and Mankind


Now if you were to rearrange the order, you can make the simplified Genesis account of creation fit the scientific model for the creation of the Universe, and Earth, although birds would move to day six, when you account for evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It all seems to silly to argue against the principle that life adapts to its environment - something that we all see and do everyday, something that we see others doing everyday and something that we see occurring in the 'natural' world all the time. Evolution is simply one way of describing and recording how these adaptions have resulted in the endless diversity and complexity of life as we see it today.

I don't "argue against the principle that life adapts to its environment" as you say it is "something that we all see and do everyday". Take dogs for instance with their seemingly endless variety, but despite that seemingly endless variety, at the end of the day they are still dogs. But "Evolution" takes it a step farther and wants us to believe that by such "adaptation" all life on Earth came to be. If Evolutionists are honest they will tell you that the theory of Evolution is not complete, there are still holes in the theory that have not been filled and may never be filled but even if the theory was complete and all the holes filled, it would still just be a way life could have come to be and not necessarily the way it did come to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It all seems to silly to argue against the principle that life adapts to its environment - something that we all see and do everyday, something that we see others doing everyday and something that we see occurring in the 'natural' world all the time. Evolution is simply one way of describing and recording how these adaptions have resulted in the endless diversity and complexity of life as we see it today.

I don't "argue against the principle that life adapts to its environment" as you say it is "something that we all see and do everyday". Take dogs for instance with their seemingly endless variety, but despite that seemingly endless variety, at the end of the day they are still dogs. But "Evolution" takes it a step farther and wants us to believe that by such "adaptation" all life on Earth came to be. If Evolutionists are honest they will tell you that the theory of Evolution is not complete, there are still holes in the theory that have not been filled and may never be filled but even if the theory was complete and all the holes filled, it would still just be a way life could have come to be and not necessarily the way it did come to be.

I am unable to see how you can agree with the principle that life adapts to its environment yet disagree with evolutionary explanations. Evolution is the process whereby life adapts to its environment, it is that principle applied to the historical record. From where I sit, you can't have one without the other.

It is specious to argue that Evolutionary Theory is incomplete. All theories are incomplete. There are no 100% complete theories in any sphere. A complete, internally consistent rational theory of anything is impossible. Nonetheless, evolution remains the best available explanation of the data with day light second and creationist fables a few light years behind. Even if we grant that your objections are valid, they still fail to justify believing in creationist myths over evolution as the same flaws that you claim negate evolutionary theory are present to a far greater degree in creationist myths. If your objections are valid, then they do infinitely more damage to creationist myths far more than evolutionary explanations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
...
Take dogs for instance with their seemingly endless variety, but despite that seemingly endless variety, at the end of the day they are still dogs. ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
...
Take dogs for instance with their seemingly endless variety, but despite that seemingly endless variety, at the end of the day they are still dogs. ...

Yes, let's take dogs for instance: at the beginning of the day they were still wolves, and in the afternoon some in Australia changed into dingos.