Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Adza,

Please cite a reputable source of a creationist using the scientific method and coming up with a 6000 year old earth. A source that is qualified within the field, understands evolutionary theory, and doesn't pull out the common nonsense that most creationists do (thermodynamics, no fossil record, etc).

I'm waiting...
 
Soggy:
I'll add it to my long list of books to read. Who is it by? I couldn't find it on amazon.
Hi Soggy,

I respect you. Seriously! You seem to be one of the few people I've seen on this thread that are willing to look at scientific studies done by others that work against evolution, without just googling for a 'quick fix' to refute that particular study.

I may not agree with your belief, but I do respect your seriousness to be challenged. That tells me that you at least are serious about your belief, and believe that their is enough evidence to support it!

For the amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414/sr=8-1/qid=1162166948/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1309351-5874464?ie=UTF8&s=books

Even though we haven't agreed on evolution - at least we agree that Diving is an enjoyable passtime. :D

Cheers
 
adza:
And once again, we see plain stupidity being used to try and refute creation, and endorse evolution. Sure - you may have 51 scientists in agreement, but let's see the book, with the scientific findings that support your belief!

This book isn't a 2 page book listing names and a short description of what they believe. It goes into deep study on the findings they have, and why they come to their conclusion.

These 50 scientists come from different fields, and come to the same conclusion by vastly different areas of study - which are (at the least) plausable, if not compelling.

Read this post
http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=2353606&postcount=2381
 
adza:
For the amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414/sr=8-1/qid=1162166948/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1309351-5874464?ie=UTF8&s=books

Even though we haven't agreed on evolution - at least we agree that Diving is an enjoyable passtime. :D

Cheers

Thanks.

I will tell you that I'm skeptical. The excerpt on Amazon is Jeremy Walter, who holds a PhD...in mechanical engineering. Not really the type of person I would expect to be doing evolutionary research.
 
I've read it, but I'm not quite sure what you're comming at? Could you expand please?

Sure - one scientists would be willing to refute all scientific evidence and stand by the bible. I agree - it may certainly seem arrogant. However, I've also heard same quotes from evolution scientists like "I don't care what the evidence points to - I will never believe that God exists". Blind faith isn't just reserved for creationists. ;)
 
Soggy:
Thanks.

I will tell you that I'm skeptical. The excerpt on Amazon is Jeremy Walter, who holds a PhD...in mechanical engineering. Not really the type of person I would expect to be doing evolutionary research.
No worries... and I'd would be disapointed if you weren't skeptical. It shows that you're not willing to believe in just anything that pops up, and sounds convincing. :D

Edit: Don't just take the excerpt as a case for the whole book either. (Also, don't just take one scientists statements as though he speaks for all of them. They're all independent, and have their strenghts and faults, just like the rest of us :) )

Break time's over. I'll check back later.

Cheers
 
Catherine, I had the great good fortune to have seen the Dalai Lama in person. A most impressive individual, and, rationalist that I am, I will admit to being aware of something transcendental about him. I was moved more than I thought I'd be by his simplicity and the quality of his aspect. It is interesting, in the context of this board, that 'dalai' means "the sea". I can accept a certain kind of mysticism, but only on an individual level. Substance is what is needed in any struggle for the souls of children, not fairy tales.
Good and evil are cultural constructs and situational concepts, but intuitively we know they exist. The problem is defining them. Great moral teachers seem to agree that generosity, selflessness, and behavior that does no harm to others are the essences of what is good. Beyond that, there are no moral absolutes.

On a more prosaic level, there are no wolves in Australia. There are Dingos, a sort of wild dog, but no wolves. The natural history of Australia is fascinating from an evolutionary standpoint, because of its long geologic isolation. The processes through which marsupials evolved to exploit environmental niches filled by biologically very different animals elsewhere is a textbook for evolutionary analysis in itself.

The unifying theories based within Darwinian evolution are the products of observation and deduction, endlessly tested, refined, expanded. "Evolutionists" do not defend a preconceived set of ideas, or some sort belief system which they adopted. Darwinian evolution is a self-validating construct. It is a theory only in the sense that gravity is a theory.
 
adza:
When all the evidence? You have certainly decided to limit yourself to what you call evidence. Over 200 scientific ways to research dating, and evolutionists can only use 2 of them. One - proven to be false all the time, and the other one limits to 50,000 years.

Why do creationists consistantly fixate on radiocarbon dating?

I can date the ages of population 3 globular clusters back to nearly 12 billion years ago, I can see light that is 2.5 million years old with my naked eye (andromeda galaxy). I can see the 12-15 billion year old light from the big bang (cosmic microwave background radiation). I can see that as you go more distant in space and backwards in time that the universe becomes different in the structure of galaxies and stars and the reflected temperature of the CMBR. I can run the Einstein equations backwards in time and it agrees with cosmological observation and gives an age of about 12-15 billion years to the entire universe. We can also date the age of the solar system and hence the age of the earth from studying isotopes that date the formation of cometary material and the moon. We can prove that venus was completely resurfaced about 2 billion years ago.

If you think that radiocarbon dating is all that you have to prove wrong in order to show that the Earth is only a few thousand years old you are severely deluded...
 
Soggy:
Adza,

Please cite a reputable source of a creationist using the scientific method and coming up with a 6000 year old earth. A source that is qualified within the field, understands evolutionary theory, and doesn't pull out the common nonsense that most creationists do (thermodynamics, no fossil record, etc).

I'm waiting...

I want to see a single astronomer who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old. The entire idea is completely ******ing laughable from an astronomical and cosmological perspective...
 
adza:
At what? That isn't a very convincing reply.
At the 200 odd pages of post that you clearly neglected to read.

adza:
Which goes to prove that you have only been exposed to limit scientific studies - and have not seen a bigger picutre. At least creationists have had some understanding of both sides. (Evolution seems to be standard curriculum at all public schools now)
Had you not been “too tired,” “too distracted,” “too something,” to read the earlier posts you’d have found that I am far more familiar with all the nuances of creationism and the biblical texts, and their interpretations than you appear to be conversant with science.

adza:
Do you simply discredit any scientist that believes evolution is false as not being a scientist? Or are you making up statements and statistics to try and prove your faith?
Most of these individuals, of whom you speak, fall into one of several groups (in order of numbers), those faking a degree, those with an advanced degree in something other than science or engineering, those with degrees in engineering, those with degrees in mathematic, physics or astronomy and a few poor souls left over like Kurt Wise, whom I am no more responsible for than is than I am for a rogue cop with a coke problem.

I have not offered you any statistics, but you go ahead and make them up for use by us both, you’ve likely had a great deal of practice at that, and poor me, I must admit to having none.

adza:
I respect decisions (regardless of which way someone decides to believe) even though I don't have to agree with it - but only when the person has been dilligent in their research.
That’s a joke; the diligence that you’ve displayed in going through the earlier posts prior to shooting off your mouth establishes you as a fraud of the first order.

adza:
Really? You get this evidence from where? Limited resources that back up what you have already decided on what to believe? … blah, blah, blah
Read the previous posts in the thread, sorry to keep giving you the same answer, but you’ve yet to convince me that you deserve special treatment.

adza:
A book of mythology with debatable origin. Again - you're simply showing me that you are going from what you've heard, and have not done your homework my friend. Have you actually done a study of the historical statements in the bible, and compared them to archological findings, and other historical documents and found them false?
Once again, may I disrespectfully suggest that you read the previous posts in the thread.

BTW: I do not recall giving you leave to call me “friend.” When you stop being lazy and do the work, then perhaps we can be friends, like I am with folks like Mike and Pete, whom I respect.

adza:
Or have you simply made a decision on what you believe is real, and then just make shallow remarks to discredit anything that disagrees with your ideals?

I must admit - it is true that there are creationists that believe what they believe solely because of their faith in the bible and don't worry about science, but that should not give you the idea that all do - as it would be false to come to this conclusion, just as it would be false to come to the conclusion that all evolutionists believe what they believe simply because they have faith in what they see on TV and have not done serious studies.
My family does not watch TV, it would cut into our reading and conversation time. I think that was mentioned in a previous post.

adza:
How does convincing someone to believe in evolution benefit human progress? Accoridng to your theory, when we die - we're gone? What difference does it make what we believe in while we're alive?
Check your ego at the door, you just can’t imagine the universe going on with out you, can you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom