Planck

the speed of light in vacuum is constant, there's no indication whatsoever that its not a natural constant. The slowing of light you're reffering to is akind to light being refracted in f.inst. glass (see the cover of "dark side of the moon" hehe). My whole problem with the young universe and the light from stars is that god would have made the light in transit - showing us viewers events (supernovas etc.) that havent happened if:
a) the speed of light in vaccum / between stars is constant
b) the event is more than 6000 /9000 light years away...

- check out this article

Arfler

Hello to everyone!

As you can tell by my post count, I am somewhat new to this forum. I have been following some of the debates on this site for some time, and I felt that it was time that I gave my own input. So here it is:

The 6000 years, that some people believe is the age of the earth, comes from counting backwards through the bible.
So if the bible is the word of God (and thus, that God wants us to think that the earth is only 6000 years old), why would he go to such great lengths to make the earth and the universe appear so much older??

-Arfler

Eric

Welcome to the site

I believe in intelligent design, but I don't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

__________________

TommyStrand

The universe doesnt appear older. He made it a working system to begin with. The reason atheists need the world to be older is because we know creatures doesnt evolve today, so they need to say that "given enough time" it might have happened...

In fairytales for children: Frog + Kiss = Prince
In fairytales for atheists: Frog + Time= Prince

Planck

Now these statements are ok with me. I dont believe they are true, but they are consistent with creatitivism, and kinda funny. Tommystrand is not trying to use “science” to prove creativism, nor trying to show that evolution is inconsistent with “science” – so no problem.

My problem with the arguments before is, Tommystrand was arguing that creativism + “science” was a more selfconsistant system of believes than the system of evolution + “science”.
Evolution is not (as far as I know) inconsistent with the common accepted disciplines/theories of science, so that’s not a valid argument to favor creativism. (on the issues of c14 dating check out this article )

It is my belief that the belief system of creativism + “science” is very dodgy at best, so I favor evolution + “science”.

I am aware though, that I in no way am able to prove the bible’s creation tale “wrong” , literally, if I have to accept that there can exist a God that’s changing the laws of nature as time goes on so everything fits with the bible . - I’m no biblescholar anyway, nor will I ever be.

(If you're start point is "the bible is true word for word" then its not hard to prove "the bible is true".

On the other hand; if you're start point is "the bible is true word for word" AND "all that science is true" - then I think that there are questions about creation that you will not be able to explain logically without using the God made it so - card)

I only think that its contradictory to argue that creativism is true, literally, AND consistant with what is normally refferred to as “science”.

peace, Planck

edit: link was behaving wonky

TommyStrand

There is no proof whatsoever for the theory of evolution. If you think there is, send one in here for a free 250,000 USD.

I base my belief in the theory of creation based on the Word of God, and of course science supports that theory. I have studied evolution and creationism and listened to, read and watched discussions among several different creationists, and several evolusionists, and listened to their best arguments. There is no proof for evolution whatsoever. Even evolutionists know this. I have read scores of statements from top of the field scientiests, paleontologists etc.

The very idea of evolution has reached the world as it is because not of science proving it, but because for the atheist - there simply is no other option. And most people are atheists... People chose not to turn to God because of whether they find proof for Him or not, but because of their sins. Jesus tells us that if "they did not listen to the prophets or the law, they won't listen even if someone raised from the dead tells them."

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it" - H.S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK in "A Physicists Looks at Evolution"

"Transformism (Evolution) is a fairy tale for grownups." - Jean Rostand, Age Nouveau

"This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." - Professor Louis Bounoure, Former President, Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, France Determinism and Finality

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it simply because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." - Sir Arthur Keith (In the foreword tot he 100th anniversary edition of Darwin's book, Origin of the Species)

"This notion of species as 'natural' kinds fits splendidly with a creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even arguend that species are God's individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are 'institured by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking'. But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?" - Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University, "AQuahog is a Quahog"

"The Big Bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen and helium, only 2 of the 92 elements of the earth's crust." - Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Research Physicist

"As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference." - Nelson Glueck, Palestinian archeologist

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." - Malcolm Muggeridge, journalist and philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." - Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commision, USA

"As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. - Chester A. Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan

"It is no doubt that natural selectionis a mechanism, that it works. It has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. The question of whether i produces new species is quite another matter. No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it. And most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how a species originates and it is there that natural selection seems to be fading and chance mechanisms of one sort or another are being invoked." - Dr. Colin Patterson, on the subject of Cladistics, in a BBC interview. Dr Patterson is Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London, England

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe it happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." - Dr. Richard Dawkins, Department of Zoology, Oxford University

"The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." - W.E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural History, London, in Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds

"In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins which were based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and objectivity. At the moment science cannot offer a full answer on the origin of humanity..." - Dr. Robert Martin, Senior Research Fellow, Zoological Fellow, Zoological Society of London

"...There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist writing in English (R. Carrol, 1988), French (J. Chaline, 1983), or German (V. Fahlbusch, 1983), denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict." - David Berlinsky, Commentary

"As by this theory unnumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" - Charles Darwin

"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all... To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the unviverse happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself... They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the excistence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classrom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." - Dr. Wernher von Braun (Father of the American rocket and space program)

"We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak." - Orr, H.A. & Coyne, J. A., American Naturalist

"I have a little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory." - Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University



I am not against any theory of the origin of the world. But when the proof for it is not found, maybe it is time to find a new theory. There are lies in the textbooks. Evolutionists distort their findings and even proclaim known frauds in support for their views. Some evolutionists are surely honest in their belief that the textbooks are corect, but this is often not the case. Material is twisted to fit with a theory.

The evolutionists unfortunately often make some big mistakes. This is not because they are so horrible or stupid people, but because they are in the world, and the god of this world is satan. They are not the enemy, they just work for him - knowingly or unknowingly. The mistakes they do is to either use scientific data and conclusions that either are too old or too young. The textbooks are packed with many "proofs" for evolution that was proved wrong years ago. And also they use the "Oh, but did you read the article from last month? There it says they NOW they have found a link between... etc etc". New material is of course interesting and we should continue the work, but a few weeks, months or years afterwards, they discover mistakes made in the original project etc and the conclusions were faulty.

TommyStrand

I have several discussion debates vs creationists and evolutionists from all over the US, professors from every known university, from the years of 1980 somthing into the 2000s. The fact remains that there is no proof for evolution. There is also "The God delusion debate" springing from the book by the same name from the scientist, author and atheists Richard Dawkins. In the video debate Richard Dawkins is allowed to stay on hometurf - the book and its material - debating against the scientist, author and christian theologian John Lennox.

Richard Dawkins: FRS is ther Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford and author of nine books. He is a Fellow of both the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Literature.

John Lennox is Reader in Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green College, University of Oxford, He holds doctorates from Oxford (D.Phil.), Cambridge (Ph.D), and the University of Wales (D.Sc.) and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. Dr. Lennox has weighed in on the science-religion debated in the Fixed Point Foundation film "Science and the God Question" and with a new book, "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?"

Of this video debate BBC says "Darwin's Rottweiler is about to get a run for his money..." - BBC

I have copies of all the videos I have seen and will gladly mail them to anyone interested.

Arfler

When I say that the earth and the universe is older than 6000 years, I base it on independent observations, not evolution.

Just look at the night sky, and you will see the light from the stars (assuming there are no clouds). By triangulation, the distance to many stars can be measured to be more than 6000 light years. This tells me that the universe is older than 6000 years, as the light would otherwise not have had the time required to travel to us from the source (the star).

I'm not ruling out that the light could have be created "in transit", but there is nothing to indicates that this is the case (Feel free to correct me if you have evidence that suggests otherwise).


When I say that the earth is older than 6000 years, I'm not just saying it because I want it to be so. I'm saying it because of the evidence. Many creationists, on the other hand, claim that the earth is only 6000 years old and that the light from the stars was created "in transit". They don't claim this because they have proof of it, but because they need it for the "young earth"-theory to hold true.


- Arfler

Edit: Too many quotation-tags

Planck

15 mins on google:

Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis

"...If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms,natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think,however, that we must go further than this and admit that the onlyacceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema tophysicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory thatwe do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson,F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicistlooks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138) Note the conditional statement that BlackSphinx selectively left out.Lipson later clarifies his position."Several people have given clear indications that they do notunderstand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that specieshave slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record."- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", PhysicsBulletin, December 1980, pg 337.Note that Lipson believes evolution to be an obvious conclusion giventhe fossil record. ..."

Cretinism or Evilution?: More Out of Context Quotations of French Scientists

"...The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist..."

Arthur Keith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994:

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould

" ...Kirtley Mather, who died last year at age ninety, was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America and one of my dearest friends. The difference of a half-century in our ages evaporated before our common interests. The most curious thing we shared was a battle we each fought at the same age. For Kirtley had gone to Tennessee with Clarence Darrow to testify for evolution at the Scopes trial of 1925. When I think that we are enmeshed again in the same struggle for one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science, I don't know whether to laugh or cry..."



Atleast some of them is not totally against evolution as far as I can read.

TommyStrand

That is your problem. 15 minutes on google and you can find a case against everything - many sides. People should really start doing some real studies again...