The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

Status
Not open for further replies.
warpus said:
That's what I'm saying. It's an arrogant Christian claim - and one of the reasons I've distanced myself from the faith.

And I disagree with your view that it is arrogant. I don't see what's so arrogant about the idea that we were created by a being who loves us, and wants the best for us, or even that we were the main reason that he created the universe as we see it. Anyways, what is important is not whether it is arrogant but whether it is true.
 
Ancient Sufi story: There was once a sheikh who was granted the power of speech with the animals. He was talking with the ants one day, and asked them whether they thought God was in the form of an ant. "No," they replied, "we ants have one one stinger, and God, He has two!"

Moral: we anthropomorphize God; we were not created in His image and likeness.
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
And I disagree with your view that it is arrogant. I don't see what's so arrogant about the idea that we were created by a being who loves us, and wants the best for us, or even that we were the main reason that he created the universe as we see it. Anyways, what is important is not whether it is arrogant but whether it is true.

All the evidence we've been gathering over the years seems to indicate that we are simply one of millions of species on one of trillions of planets, in one of trillions of solar systems, in one of billions of galaxies.. There doesn't appear to be anything special about us at all, aside from the fact that we're somewhat intelligent and that we wear digital watches.

To suggest that the Universe might've been created is a very sensible suggestion, but to suggest that this creator created the Universe specifically for us, and that he loves us, is, IMO, the height of arrogance.

We are not the centre of the universe. The sooner we come to terms with that, the better.
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
Okay, maybe this is a little OT but I don't think it is arrogant to think our creator loves us. And anyways, what matters is not whether it is arrogant but whether it is true.

To love all of creation, sure. But to single out an insignificant little species on an insignificant little planet and to focus more love on us than elsewhere.. to suggest that is arrogant. We're no more special than species HHDS-56 on planet Zirkon-45 in the KJ65883 galaxy.

In any case, yes, this is getting a bit off topic :)
 
Since it's silent and the drive-by posters are staying away, let's examine C_H's sig link, Thousands, not Billions. And by "examine", I am likely to mean "dissect".
The earth: how old does it look?

Even many of those who believe that the earth is ‘young’ think that it looks ‘old’. But does it?

by Carl Wieland


<snip an anecdote that was mistaken for data>

Summarizing just some of the evidence that is consistent with a young age for the world:
1) The continents are eroding too quickly. [link from footnote]

If the continents were billions of years old, they would have eroded by wind and water many times over. Mountain uplift and other &#8216;recycling&#8217; processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for this.


2) There is not enough helium in the atmosphere. [link from footnote]

Helium, a light gas, is formed during radioactive alpha decay in rock minerals. It rapidly escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster than it can escape Earth&#8217;s gravity. Even if God had created the world with no helium to begin with, the small amount in the atmosphere would have taken at most around two million years to accumulate. This is far less than the assumed 3,000-million-year age of the atmosphere.


3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans. [You know the drill]

a) Common fossils.

There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks.3 A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah&#8217;s Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres.

b) Special examples.

We&#8217;ve often featured in this magazine instances which are particularly spectacular, like the mother ichthyosaur apparently &#8216;freeze-framed&#8217; in the process of giving birth. Then there are the fossil fish which are found either in the process of swallowing other fish or with undigested fish intact in their stomachs (see Creation magazine for photos&#8212;we had only one-off permission for some of them).
4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all.

a) Coal formation. [This time the reference is: "Organic Geochemistry 6:463&#8211;471, 1984" and not a link]

Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150&#176;C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.4

b) Stalactites and stalagmites.

Many examples in Creation magazine have shown that cave decorations form quickly, given the right conditions. The photo (in Creation magazine) is of a mining tunnel in Mt Isa, Queensland, Australia. The tunnel was only 50 years old when the photo was taken.

c) Opals.

Despite the common teaching that it takes millions of years to form opal, Australian researcher Len Cram has long been growing opal in his backyard laboratory. His opal (photo right, by Dr Cram) is indistinguishable, under the electron microscope, from that mined in the field. He was awarded an honorary doctorate (by a secular university) for this research. All he does is mix together the right common chemicals &#8212; no heat, no pressure, and definitely no millions of years.

d) Rock and fossil formation.

Scientists have long known that petrifaction can happen quickly. The &#8216;petrified&#8217; bowler hat (below right, by Renton Maclachlan) is on display in &#8216;The Buried Village&#8217;, an open air museum dedicated to the Mt Tarawera eruption, in New Zealand. The photo (below left) shows a roll of no. 8 fencing wire which, in only 20 years, became encased in solid sandstone, containing hundreds of fossil shells. Petrified wood can also form quickly under the right conditions&#8212;one process has even been patented. [Drill drill]

The famous multiple levels of &#8216;fossil forests&#8217; in America&#8217;s Yellowstone National Park (photo right, by Clyde Webster) have now been shown to have formed in one volcanic event. Successive mudflows transported upright trees (minus most of their roots and branches) whose tree-ring signatures confirm that they grew at the one time. Drill.
5) The oceans are nowhere near salty enough.

Each year, the world&#8217;s rivers and underground streams add millions of tonnes of salt to the sea, and only a fraction of this goes back onto the land. Using the most favourable possible assumptions for long-agers, the absolute maximum age of the oceans is only a tiny fraction of their assumed billions-of-years age. Drill.

Despite some inevitable unsolved problems in such a complex issue (see below for why radiometric dating is not infallible), it is thus not hard to establish [snip religious propositions]

Whew. Exhausting work with the footnoting and trimming. Who wants the first go at it?
EDIT: PS: May the FAQ be with you.
 
While reading Erik's post and weighing the benefits of actually trying to respond to some of the Creationist points, an image arrived unbidden in my mind. In this vision, I saw Erik dressed in a white gi and a black belt, standing in a room with bamboo walls. Around him stood ranks of combat practice dummies, and seated on the floor (cross-legged, of course) were Perfection, Eran, ironduck, Che, and many others, all dressed like Erik. The ceiling was adorned with a fresco (Look, it's a vision, all right? What's more, it's my vision, and this bamboo hut happened to have a frescoed ceiling. Deal.) painted by a consortium of the greatest humanist artists of the Renaissance, depicting the Flying Spaghetti Monster in all of his noodly glory. Each robed adept held books, with titles like On the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, and Diana: The People's Princess (Don't ask, that was ironduck. And anyway, it was a vision-- what do you want from me?). On the wall, pictures of Thomas Huxley, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Jay Gould gazed down upon the scene with expressions of magisterial approval. This, I realized with a start, was the Evolution Dojo. Here, secretly cloaked in secrecy and caped in the dark, shadowy, black shadows of night, these bulldogs of science, these knights of knowledge, these envoys of enlightenment, these latter-day apostles of the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, here they trained and prepared each day to sally forth in dubious battle against the Biblical Literalist menace.
Seeing this vision, I realized that we are ready for whatever they throw at us. Though their Twisted Illogic Style and their Ad Hominem Technique are mighty, our dojo is the mightier. Of course, all is not peaches and cream here in the Enlightenment Camp: some of us still resort to the very tactics of our foes when we battle them. We must not lower ourselves to their depths if we ever hope to defeat them. Rhetoric must be met head-on by logic, pseudoscience by evidence. We need do no more than stick to our guns, and the moribund views will collapse like a shoddily-constructed paisley ottoman (with tassles) under the weight of our avalanche of scientific evidence. But before you go out to engage the adversaries, you must be sure you can defeat the practice mannequins (In other words, fake dummies before real dummies). So respond to Erik's arguments as logically and intelligently as you can, and then ask yourself: how strong is your Darwin-fu?
 
Not lately. It's just the drugs :P.
 
ironduck said:
You assimilate them?

The Borg only assimilate those that have something to offer to The Collective. Otherwise they completely ignore them.
 
ironduck said:
You assimilate them?

Nah they are unworthy of assimilation.







Actualy I was spoofing Bush's "We do not negortiate with terrorists".


@nihilistic Unless there a threat then they are destroyd.
 
Erik Mesoy said:
Since it's silent and the drive-by posters are staying away, let's examine C_H's sig link, Thousands, not Billions. And by "examine", I am likely to mean "dissect".


Oh my. What a load of nonsense.

here goes:
1) The continents are eroding too quickly. [link from footnote]

If the continents were billions of years old, they would have eroded by wind and water many times over. Mountain uplift and other &#8216;recycling&#8217; processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for this.
Quite easy to dissect: the morons simply ignore THE huge source of new continental material: plate tectonics! Including the obvious volcanism, non-glacier related uplift etc.
MORONS! It is stupid to tell lies, it is moronic to tell lies that anyone with a high school education can recognize as such! :lol:

2) There is not enough helium in the atmosphere. [link from footnote]

Helium, a light gas, is formed during radioactive alpha decay in rock minerals. It rapidly escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster than it can escape Earth&#8217;s gravity. Even if God had created the world with no helium to begin with, the small amount in the atmosphere would have taken at most around two million years to accumulate. This is far less than the assumed 3,000-million-year age of the atmosphere.

I find this section of the linked article especially telling:
The only way around this problem is to assume that the helium is escaping into space. But for this to happen, the helium atoms must be moving fast enough to escape the earth&#8217;s gravity (i.e., above the escape velocity). Collisions between atoms slow them down, but above a critical height (the exobase) of about 500 kilometres (300 miles) above the earth, collisions are very rare. Atoms crossing this height have a chance of escaping if they are moving fast enough&#8212;at least 10.75 kilometres per second (24,200 miles per hour).3 Note that although helium in a balloon will float, helium when unenclosed will just mix evenly with all the other gases, as per normal gas behaviour.

this suggests that OUTSIDE a baloon, helium 'atoms' will NOT 'float' - thus that the % of helium molecules in the lowest 5m of athmosphere are the same as in any other layer. DOH!

but, as usual, i think this is INTENTIONAL - a lie!
But I will let this be answer enough:
Claim CE001:
The radioactive decay of several elements produces helium, which migrates to the atmosphere. There is too little helium in the atmosphere to account for the amount that would have been produced in 4.5 billion years. Escape of helium into space is not sufficient to account for the lack.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 150-151.
Response:

1. Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).

Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof14
References:

1. Lie-Svendsen, O. and M. H. Rees, 1996. Helium escape from the terrestrial atmosphere - the ion outflow mechanism. Journal of Geophysical Research 101: 2435-2443.
source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html


and on:
Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.
So? And who says that because the fossil was FORMED quickly it hasn't restet in the rock for a long time, idiot?

a) Common fossils.

There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks.3 A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah&#8217;s Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres.

a) please provide proof that 'dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours'. I highly doubt this statement, simply because I used to fish, and I know that in some waters, dead fish lie around until they stink real bad.

MORONS! Telling lies that are so easy to catch is really dumber than the bible allows!

b) please show how the many turbidite events you name are linked to 'noah's flood'

c) please show how turbidites can cover thousands of square kilometers (hint: they never do, morons!)


b) Special examples.

We&#8217;ve often featured in this magazine instances which are particularly spectacular, like the mother ichthyosaur apparently &#8216;freeze-framed&#8217; in the process of giving birth. Then there are the fossil fish which are found either in the process of swallowing other fish or with undigested fish intact in their stomachs (see Creation magazine for photos&#8212;we had only one-off permission for some of them).

And so...... just because some animals were burried rather rapidly, this doesn't mean that ALL were. So you have no ****ing point, along with no ****ing clue, because the 'apparent' 'prcoess of giving birth' ichtyosaurs are - all I have seen, and I have seen about 25! - post-mortem expulsion of the embryo due to high gas pressure in the body cavity or sediment compaction.



and on.....
4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all.

a) Coal formation. [This time the reference is: "Organic Geochemistry 6:463&#8211;471, 1984" and not a link]

Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150&#176;C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.4


yeah, which is why coal is so nicely embedded as high-grade cola only between granit elayers :lol:

if, OTOH, you now go out tot he field and LOOK AT COAL DEPOSITS you find that there's a HUGE bunch of other stuff there. And that there is no freaking chance in hell that are sealed quartz tubes in the Ruhrgebiet sediments on Germany - morons!

b) Stalactites and stalagmites.

Many examples in Creation magazine have shown that cave decorations form quickly, given the right conditions. The photo (in Creation magazine) is of a mining tunnel in Mt Isa, Queensland, Australia. The tunnel was only 50 years old when the photo was taken.
As usual with creationists, they take one atypical example and then generalize.... :rolleyes:
need I say it? Need it?

Morons! liars!

c) Opals.

Despite the common teaching that it takes millions of years to form opal, Australian researcher Len Cram has long been growing opal in his backyard laboratory. His opal (photo right, by Dr Cram) is indistinguishable, under the electron microscope, from that mined in the field. He was awarded an honorary doctorate (by a secular university) for this research. All he does is mix together the right common chemicals &#8212; no heat, no pressure, and definitely no millions of years.

Interesting, so I tried to find some stuff on this in a proper source. And, funny funny, GEOREF doesn't have any publications by this man. Nothind, nada, zip, zilch, gornischt.

No why do I smell a fake here.........

d) Rock and fossil formation.

Scientists have long known that petrifaction can happen quickly. The &#8216;petrified&#8217; bowler hat (below right, by Renton Maclachlan) is on display in &#8216;The Buried Village&#8217;, an open air museum dedicated to the Mt Tarawera eruption, in New Zealand. The photo (below left) shows a roll of no. 8 fencing wire which, in only 20 years, became encased in solid sandstone, containing hundreds of fossil shells. Petrified wood can also form quickly under the right conditions&#8212;one process has even been patented. [Drill drill]

The famous multiple levels of &#8216;fossil forests&#8217; in America&#8217;s Yellowstone National Park (photo right, by Clyde Webster) have now been shown to have formed in one volcanic event. Successive mudflows transported upright trees (minus most of their roots and branches) whose tree-ring signatures confirm that they grew at the one time.

Yeah, yeah, and again: just because in SOME instances somehting can happen fast, they now claim it all happenes fast and all at the same time. By the same logic, just because a ten baseballs can be hit at the same time by ten batters and then fly, ALL baseballs ever hit must have been hit at the same time. And any baseball that ever flew was hit by one of these batters.


:lol: :lol:

and for the last one:
5) The oceans are nowhere near salty enough.

Each year, the world&#8217;s rivers and underground streams add millions of tonnes of salt to the sea, and only a fraction of this goes back onto the land. Using the most favourable possible assumptions for long-agers, the absolute maximum age of the oceans is only a tiny fraction of their assumed billions-of-years age.
they again fail to show how it is only a 'fraction' that goes back 'to land' - and they ignore the huge amounts that go 'to ground'.
Oh my. Me no need bother with such idiocy.

Moderator Action: Warned for language and trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Hello folks, here I am again, sorry that I pop in here so sporatically. I have not read all the threads here either, so I have no idea whether this stuff has been discussed. I assume it has, but perhaps you all will be willing to humor me and answer me anyway.

In the past, when I have joined in on this thread I have questioned mostly the theory of evolution. Since this thread appears to be about blowing holes in Creationism, I think maybe a better starting point would be to discuss this from a cosmological viewpoint first before getting into evolution. Most of you have stated that I do not understand the theory anyway. I am ok to leave it at that, but I do think I understand it. While I am a Christian, I am not necessarily seeking, at least at this juncture to argue creationism from a Christian viewpoint. In other words, I would prefer to establish that intelligence that transcends time is behind the Big Bang. I am also inferring here that most folks accept the Big Bang as the most logical theory of the origin of the universe.

For athiests - I presume they would agree with Quentin Smith when he says that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. My question is please elaborate on what you think if you are an athiest? Does this seem logical? How does this happen from a concept of absolute nothingness? Please explain.
 
bgast1 said:
Hello folks, here I am again, sorry that I pop in here so sporatically. I have not read all the threads here either, so I have no idea whether this stuff has been discussed. I assume it has, but perhaps you all will be willing to humor me and answer me anyway.

In the past, when I have joined in on this thread I have questioned mostly the theory of evolution. Since this thread appears to be about blowing holes in Creationism, I think maybe a better starting point would be to discuss this from a cosmological viewpoint first before getting into evolution. Most of you have stated that I do not understand the theory anyway. I am ok to leave it at that, but I do think I understand it. While I am a Christian, I am not necessarily seeking, at least at this juncture to argue creationism from a Christian viewpoint. In other words, I would prefer to establish that intelligence that transcends time is behind the Big Bang. I am also inferring here that most folks accept the Big Bang as the most logical theory of the origin of the universe.

For athiests - I presume they would agree with Quentin Smith when he says that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. My question is please elaborate on what you think if you are an athiest? Does this seem logical? How does this happen from a concept of absolute nothingness? Please explain.

We didnt come from nothing. We came from organic compounds that formed by chance in the anceint sea of earth.

Once those compounds could metabolize and replicate life would take off.

Hey it didnt happen overnight either, the first fossils of bacteria date back to 3.8 billion years ago. The earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. A LOT can happen in 800 million years..
 
Xanikk999 said:
We didnt come from nothing. We came from organic compounds that formed by chance in the anceint sea of earth.

Once those compounds could metabolize and replicate life would take off.

Hey it didnt happen overnight either, the first fossils of bacteria date back to 3.8 billion years ago. The earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. A LOT can happen in 800 million years..

Here's my point. But first let me ask. Is this thread about saying that God, did not do it? That all of this just happened out of nothing? I don't get it. Creationism is a valid scientific theory, all Creationism does is take all of the evidence available, and then infers a different conclusion, based upon the evidence, than materialists.

Science can take us to the First Event. But it can't take us to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time, and energy points to the need for some kind of trancendence. The world is much more complicated than to explain it merely by science. Accepting the supernatural gives us a springboard to understand the mystery of existence. For this reason creationism is as valid of a theory as materialism.
 
This thread does not deal with what role, if any, God may or may not have had in the creation of life on earth. I linked to a thread on theistic evolution, which would deal with this more specifically, in one of my first posts here, on the first page. You can post about it there. This thread is just about science - the evidence pointing to evolution by natural selection being responsible for the diversity of life we now have, rather than multiple instances of special creation; and also that the process has unfolded over billions, not thousands, of years. I am a creationist in the sense that I believe God created the earth; however, I believe that evolution best describes the processes He used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom