Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:An Alternative (Score -1) 84

by MadFan (#40414733) Attached to: Tropical Lakes On Saturn Moon Could Expand Options For Life

The biggest problem with Christianity is Christians, as a Christian I find that so often to be the case. I sometimes agree with what you say and sometimes want to just slap you through your monitor.

I agree

You keep saying "we creationists believe" as if there's only one interpretation of scripture. The bible is meant to tell us things we could not figure out ourselves (We could not have figured out the trinity or Christ's sacrifice, for example, without divine revelation of those things.) and contains many different writing styles. Some is poetry, some is history, some is laws. It is, in effect, a love letter from a parent to the children. Christians take various interpretations, quite a few, myself included, simply admit that we don't know how it happened in regards to the floods. I can of course think of a few ways, but I don't know. He could have used natural forces, he could have just plonked down a few miles of water, I don't know and that is OK. You are entitled to your interpretations, but please don't lump me in with your interpretation as you seem to frequently do.

You are right, I shouldn't do a generic all encompassing statement, as you also can't pin down what an evolutionist believe as they all believe different things. You are free to assume how God did the flood to the parameters givens in the Bible.

If Science says that the world is 14 billion years old, then great.

Wrong, lets assume that science says that and it's not the spin put on it from a atheist world view like now. If the Earth is 4.5 billions then that would make God a lier not only in Genesis, but also Jesus himself. It would make his death meaningless as sin and death would be already in the world. It would make God a cruel and sloppy designer unable to make anything complex and needed pain and suffering to get anywhere. The believe in long ages total undermines the Bible and Atheists can see this quite clearly. The another issue here is why not take him at his word? He says it did it in 6 days, 6000 years agos. If you dont believe in what he says how can you possible believe him when he says your sins are forgiven?

Side note: The atheist's believe is that it is the universe that is 14 billion years old, not the earth. This use to be a problem in the past for creationists as it's obvious how far the stars are away but we now have our own cosmologies to explain an old universe (stars created on 4 day) yet the Earth being 6000 years old. The two are not incompatible anymore, only based on the Genesis record.

Science and Christianity are not at odds. Science and some Christians interpretation of scripture is. If anything, science of the 20th century has been a boon for Christianity and a major headache for Atheists. 200 years ago we did not have Scientific evidence of a fine-tuned universe with a beginning and we also did not have some of the superb Christian philosophy that has arisen over the last 50+ years.

Science and Christianity isn't at odds, only the religion of evolution being masked as "science". I agree that with more advance science we are beginning to understand how radically complex life is, but as predicted in the Bible, the scorners will continue to mock the creator saying everything is just like they were from the beginning.

Now i have to prepare for another reply from an eager evolutionist in another thread.

Cheers

Comment: Re:An Alternative (Score -1) 84

by MadFan (#40357107) Attached to: Tropical Lakes On Saturn Moon Could Expand Options For Life
Thats ok you dont have time, I spent all of my sunday replying my last post to another guy.
I dont know about dissipation of heat, I am not an expert in that matter and I havn't read anything about it either so I hate to use the evolutionist argument of "It had to happen because we see it that way today" and apply it to heat dissipation.. I really do hate that argument, it's logically flawed.
I just relised you might be talking about the nebular theory, It's a invalid position to take if the bodies were created, hence not the entire body was molten, only the parts of the already created smooth surface would of been hot after being hit. And it would of been weeks to months for such surface area to cool down.
With the flood you have made 2 wrong assumptions in that question
1 - It wasn't that rain that caused the flood, "the fountains of the deep opened up", we creationists believe that to be a layer of water below the continenal crust. This theory was is called catastrophic plate tectonics "CPT". Basically the land mass torn about in the Atlantic ocean when the Pacific sunk, opening the crack to a ocean of water which gushed out at super sonic speed because of the pressure. This is the rain that happen, so it's a symptom of that caused the flood. Of course to be fair there is another creationist theory called the water canopy but that would not produce the water required IMO, but it does explain alot of pre flood things
2 - 8000m, I am assuming you think the water had to reach 8000 meters (Mt Everest), this is not the case. The bible said it reach a little above the highest mountain on earth, that highest mountain would not of been Everest. With CPT you will get continents siding off the water layer away from the crack initially at up to 40 meters per hour!. These continents would then rub up against other plates and slow down after folding up and down, causing the mountians today and the deep valleys of the oceans, allowing the water to flow into. Hence we dont know how tall the highest mountain was but if the earth was purely flat then the water would of covered the land by 3 Kms so the mountain had to be shorter than that.
Oh yes Air pressure, The water canopy theory would make the Earth a big hyperbolic chamber, which would make for massive vegetation, allow 70 ton dinosaurs to breath through there horse size nostrils. Today, if you grow a mini tomato plant in these conditions it becomes 14 meters tall produce 15000 tomatos over its live and becomes an attraction in a japanese shopping center. Also some other guy grew piranha and they grew 4x times bigger. Of evidence of increase oxygen levels pre flood is in sap you find air bubbles with 30% oxygren, that 50% more than today and 70 ton dinosaurs that couldn't get enough oxygen with their small (horse size) nostrils .
The water mainly came from underground, yes a lot when into the stratosphere, I dont know how that would effect the temperature. How hot was the water under pressure in CPT? how much did it cool by being sprayed out? I just dont know. But that does raise an interesting question about the Ice age, (which was only on high ground) but we think that was due to the flood interfering with the water cycle around the earth.
I wish you all the best
Cheers

Comment: Re:Now watch... (Score -1) 640

I am impressed you replied back, so I took the time to form my replied as well.

The difference is my belief is evidence based, not mythology based

Your believe is based on mythology, it also has evidence which is interpeted to fit the story. This is the same for creationists. both are religious views. Otherwise get a mouse and evolve wings on it. If you cant repeat it, test it and confirm it, it isn't operational science and falls into the "must take on faith" basket.

Now you've stated that you believe the Bible isn't mythology, but it has all the markings of it.

I can see how you would think that. What a surprise that God would actually do things in a book about him.

So you have to go out of your way to make the evidence fit the mythology. Scientists used to be much more religious, but abandoned it because the evidence didn't support it.

All the major lines of science were by creationists. copy and paste below

  • The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the faulty Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
  • Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879).
  • Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He “believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.”
  • The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
  • The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were “thinking God’s thoughts after him”. Kepler also calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, close to Ussher’s.
  • The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, were discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727), who also discovered the spectrum of light (so was the forerunner of my own speciality, spectroscopy), invented the reflecting telescope, discovered the exponential law of cooling, and co-invented calculus.
  • The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon.

Fair enough, but if God could make the animals come to Noah, he could make them behave on the boat too. For that matter, he didn't need Noah to undertake the superhuman task of creating such a large boat in the first place.

We dont know how the animals behaved in the ship. I would say alot like what they would do now for the ones that were not sleeping. It wasn't exactly a superhuman task to build a ship. Yes it took 100 years to build it. Side note: People lived longer because they were genetically perfect to start with and then DNA errors came in for each generation hence each generation lived shorter (except for Methuselah which his name means It will come when he dies, which was the year of the flood, so his long life was a form of grace by God.).

Oh, is that all? Even allowing that, you suppose one man and his family was able to store food for 20,000 "kinds", which you then have to double for pairs (or 7 pairs, as the case may be), and have enough food to last for months? And the food didn't rot during this time? Come on, this story is fit for children, not grown adults with an education.

I found a link describing alot of your questions about the Ark. The Ark

The Grand Canyon is easy to pick on because of the meandering that it does. See this video [youtube.com] for an explanation of why a flood wouldn't show that pattern through rock. The article you link to mentions this problem, and then inexplicably, to counter it they use the Wadden Sea as an example that shows meandering, but that's a sandbank! It doesn't cut through hard rock.

Figure 18 shows the Colorado River at the level of Marble Canyon, and, as can be seen, it is meandering in hard rock!
One prerequisite for a river to meander is that the sediments it flows across are soft, not hard. Meandering is caused by a combination of erosion and deposition of sediments. What could possibly explain that the Colorado River is meandering in hard rock? The likely answer to this would be that such rock wasn’t that hard when the Colorado River originally carved its first shape.
Another prerequisite for meandering is that the water has to flow slowly enough to deposit the sediments. Therefore the BDT is not adequate to explain this, but the RFS is.
The uniformitarian explanation for this feature is that the river first formed in deposited alluvium and that after uplift of the Colorado Plateau it continued eroding down through the hard rock.10-15 Nevertheless, at Marble Canyon there is no alluvium on the plateau, neither is there any trace of a previous alluvium.

Thats an interesting video, but the article explains how not the BDT but the RFS that caused the first cut into the then freashly laid soft rock. It then says the scenerio of the uniformitarian explanation also requires soft alluvium but yet there is none there. Here you have two competing theories, one which gives a plusable scenerio of how it cut thru freashly laid sedimentary layer and the other requires you to believe in a the non existant top alluvium layer

Even if I were to accept the creationist view that these are flood events, the challenge for you is to link all these features to the same time period. The Three Sisters article offered a date of "33,720 +/- 430 years". So where's the corresponding evidence with those dates?

The age of 33Kys is in referance to fossil wood found inside the Hawkesbury Sandstone.

In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon (see photo, right).8 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than likely it was the forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.2,7 The fossil was probably the wood from the stem of a frond.

Radiocarbon (14C) analysis Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples. The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis. The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0.9 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.

See Hawkesbury Sandstone

A Creationist does not accept the dating method from radiometic dating techniques as they have been proven wrong many times with rocks of known ages, and they often contradict each other.
That being said, since there is at current rates of decay for c14 dating a upper limit of 50,000 years, anything living thing with c14 in it must therefor be less than 50,000 years.
Hence when one dating technique says 220,000,000 years and another says 33,000 it shows that the 220,000,000 has hidden assumptions behind it proven to be incorrect as something can not be both 33K and 220M yrs old at the same time.
(We also say the 33Kyr age is wrong based on other assumpions that it does not take into account the flood which would make any ages greater than 4000 yrs appear alot older.)
This is a big problem for evolutionists as they need the millions of years, yet there own dating techinques show the major contradictions.
For example, Back in my home country of New Zealand, there was a vocaino that exploded 3.5 million years ago on June 30, 1954. radioactive dating failure

Most importantly, where's the extinction event in the fossil record? It would be obvious from such a worldwide flood, especially one so recent.

The entire record speaks of a major catastrophe where all breathing life on the surface died. I get the hint you were also trying to mix theorys where the flood was only just 1 layer in the "geologic column" (which is only found in the textbooks) hence all fossils would be in that layer. There is some debate about where the boundaries of the flood / pre flood are, and I can't be bother to read up it, but it's in that creation.com website if you want to read up on it.

That's what early geologists who were raised in Hebrew mythology expected to find, but they didn't. That's why science has grown to dominantly rejects such myths.

Gelogists were able to explain the worlds formation quite well, it was because of Charles Lyell that the idea of long ages came into popularity. One such example is when he visited Niagara falls, seen the gorge that was cut out by the falls and made the report that it took 35000 years to do, but he ignored reports from the locals where the river receded 45 meters in 40 years, which would of only been 12000 years and thats not counting the flood again. see link http://creation.com/niagara-falls-and-the-bible

With the video:

  • It talked about some small things changing but yet they remain things
  • Horse shoe crab
    These appear in the fossil record exactly like the living Horse crabs today. This is what you call a living fossil. No evolution over 400Myr, or no changes over 4000 years.
  • Neopilina
    I found a evolution web site stating that is molluscs special place in the evolution's tree was that is gills had seperated comparments yet this site says new studies shows otherwise but it doesn't give any referances for me to track down.
    Also this is a living fossil again. And it is a fully formed mollusc, even if it insides are little different from other molluscs. evolutionwiki.org.
  • Onychophora
    http://creation.com/what-is-peripatus
  • Ichthyostega
    Ah, the walking fish. This is a classic case of trying to fit a story involving multiple creatures, lets break down the story
    The sequence goes: Rhipidistians (Eusthenopteron) -> Panderichthys -> Tiktaalik -> Acanthostega -> Ichthyostega
    This sequence is based on the phyisical looks of the creature yet when taken a closer look we find the order in the record not correct.
    The Panderichthys is dated eariler than it's supposed predecessor Eusthenopteron. The Acanthostega is dated to be comtemories to Ichthyostega.
    In all cases the fins were fully fins and the legs were fully legs. Mosaics creatures (like duck pill platypus) do not count as a tranisition form when all components of the creature are fully formed.
    But lets get a quote from Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum (Natural History) in London

    In 1978 that museum published a book on evolution by Patterson.6 Designed to be a popular book on the subject, it is still being sold in museums, even here in Australia. So it is still regarded as an authoritative presentation on evolution, including the fossil record. Yet, even though fossils are mentioned in a number of places in the book, nowhere does Patterson illustrate any ‘missing links’ between major types of organisms, such as between fish and amphibians.
    In 1979 American Luther Sunderland read Patterson’s book and noticed this rather obvious lack of even a single photograph or drawing of a transitional fossil. So he wrote to Patterson asking why this omission, and in a letter dated 10 April 1979 Patterson replied in these words:

    ‘ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’

    Other this series you will find a dramatically different structure of the fins / feet, with the Eusthenopteron having only 5 "fingers" in the fin yet Ichthyostega having 7 and Acanthostega having 8. This is indication that they did not developed from each other but were always fully distinct like in the fossil record.

    There was a classic evolutionist argument that the first fist to walk on land was the coelacanth which was extinct for 65 million years, until 1938 were it was caught alive. Now now only does this say that evolution doesn't happen, (evolutionist make the excuse that creatures dont need to change) but the argument with this fish was that it's fins were legs yet we found out that it's only used to holding on to rocks, it doesn't walk at all.

    To quote a book below:
    A very recent find of the fossil of an amphibian in the Upper Devonian rocks in the Catskill Formation of Pennsylvania greatly reinforces the evidence that those creatures believed to be the oldest amphibians were fully developed with no evidence of transitional forms. The report on this amphimain, designated Hynerpeton bassetti, appear in the July 29 1994, issue of Science by Daeschler, Shubin, Thomson, and Amaral. They state

    Derived features of the shoulder girdle indicate that appendicular mechanisms of support and propulsion were well developed even in the earliest phases of tetrapod history.

    What we have here is a creature, believed to be older than the creatures previously thought to be the oldest known ampibians, that is 100% amphibian, with fully developed amphibian limbs and other features believed to be advanced, This further falsifies predictions based on evolutionary theory, but provides powerful additional evidence for creation.

Fossilization is a rare event, but despite that we keep on finding more and keep on filling in gaps. There are transitional fossils.

I disagree with the transitional fossils but fossilation is rare, you need to be buried quickly otherwise the body will just rot and be eaten.
Fossilised JellyFish. Trees do not wait for millions of years eaither Yellow Stone Again and again.
So what would send many many layers of mud over something to be buried, well it needs alot of water, it would have to be devastating, it would have to be sudden, oh I know, global flood :-).

No, the lack of fossils is evidence for a particular kind of evolution, one that does leaves traces, but just not as many.

Follow the evidence, If the evidence disagrees with you, you dont just work around it. But all evolutionists do that, so I cant blame you that much, oh wait dont you claim science on your side?

she was is that the evidence for human evolution is irrefutable

Irrefuted. and again

This year’s study further strengthens creationist predictions. Tel Aviv University anthropologists determined that Lucy’s mandibular ramus, or lower jaw bone, not only appears in Australopithecus robustus, but closely resembles that of a gorilla. As a result, the evolutionary researchers concluded that Lucy should no longer be considered man’s direct ancestor. As is typically the case in the field of human evolution, a single bone structure overturns years of grossly exaggerated claims.

More like they refuse to acknowledge it. A simple example is nylonase [wikipedia.org].

This link describs it This is an interesting thing you have raised, TIL about Plasmids. This is why I love to argue, I tend to pick up new things all the time.

Finally, Mr Cerutti is out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids [e.g. K. Kato, et al., ‘A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2’, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):2585–2590, 1995.] In fact, more than one species of bacteria have the ability, residing on plasmids. This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria.

So the question here is plasmids a designed feature? because if the main chromosome changes too quickly the host dies, hence having plasmids allow for rapid changes with mutations without risking the lethal mutations to the host.

I am almost yelling at my computer, no thats not true, that true,, thats not true, thats correct, thats not true, you just made that up, oh you are skipping over the good parts, thats bs too, when I am watching your video.

Again, if you're going to copy and paste from creation sites, please quote and give links. Now that you've listed what Archaeopteryx has in common with birds, this site [talkorigins.org] talks about what it has in common with reptiles. Again, that's what you would expect from a transitional species, where there's a mingling of features.

Again, if you're going to copy and paste from creation sites, please quote and give links. Now that you've listed what Archaeopteryx has in common with birds, this site [talkorigins.org] talks about what it has in common with reptiles. Again, that's what you would expect from a transitional species, where there's a mingling of features.

Archaeopteryx is truly unique, and appears to exhibit a mosaic of characters, sharing some in common with the class Aves and some with the class Reptilia. It seems to have been suited to a lifestyle of short flights and agile crawling in trees, and those features which make it unquestionably a bird for classification purposes are uniquely and completely present and perfect. The feathers are not halfway transition from scales to feathers, an assumed transformation of the most astounding complexity. If for no other reason, this would disqualify it as a transitional form. A bat is not a transitional form between bird and mammal, nor is a platypus transitional between duck and mammal, even though it exhibits some features of both.

The bible never mentions cells.

I wonder why not, when it was the only form of life on the planet for billions of years. The germ theory of disease would have been pretty handy to know about, too, instead of crude dietary restrictions.

Note: Louis Pasteur was the founder of germ theory, a creationist. :-) just wanted to through that one in.
Again you are mixing a fairy tale of evolution with the bible. The bible does not support that fiction and so by trying to add a false premise you only end up comfirming your own assumptions. When you want to attack the other persons view, you must do so in the entirety of that view. So there is no billions of years in the bible.

The rules that were put down were vastly better than the highly train Egyptian medical knownleged, because for them to heal a wound you had to rub various types of shit over it. Read up on thier practices for a good laugh.

The Bible isn't a science book either its a history book, but when it does make sciencific statements they have turned out correct. Do you believe that space is expanding?

This is retarded. Seriously. Please watch these [youtube.com] videos [youtube.com].

The mud flow layering is down by moving flowing water. I couldn't find the link about it.
That video does put up a valid argument as to why you get certian creatures in certain layers. But now it's too late i need to sleep, I'll get back to you on that.
My argument of smart creatures surviving better does seem very week I will need to look into that. I hate "just so" stories.

I'll look forward to your reply.
If you have an argument with one of my positions, you can usually check out what I would say by doing a quick search on creation.com. It contains a lot of information on these subject matter. I will try and look into why you tend to get certain fossils often in certain layers (Note: We have for example found ducks, owls, piper, parrots, loons, flamingos etc in the Cretaceous layers So I dont hold that birds are only in the recent layers). Cheers

Comment: Re:An Alternative (Score -1) 84

by MadFan (#40343205) Attached to: Tropical Lakes On Saturn Moon Could Expand Options For Life

Issue 1 - Accretion disks
There are dust rock/disks around stars, one example is pictrous beta, Which to my knowledge is the best example yet even in this it shows a fully formed plant that has already cleared its area of rocks. It does not show a forming planet but an already formed plant.
Note that when I say disks I am not saying those disks are the same in the nebular theory.
A counter example would be our every own Sun. Our Sun has 99.8% of the mass but only 2% of the angular momentum. If the Sun was made out of the nebular theory then just like how a ice skater spins faster when her arms are pulled in, then the Sun should have the bulk of the angular momentum. Yet the evidence shows otherwise.

Issue 2 - Star Nurseries
We see at best are cloudy areas that are getting brighter. We have not observed any stars forming, only glowing gas. The clouds in question are are glowing indicates that they are hot - thousands of degrees.
Problems with star formation from gas is that Gas is too hot to condense by gravity. That is, once you get the gas compressed enough, it becomes too hot and expand out because the particles are bouncing around too fast. This is a basic law of gases.
To get around this problem, it is claimed that you need a nearby super nova to compress the gas to trigger it from the gas's primed state to get it to the critical point of gravitational collapse. There are an observed 200 super novas in our galaxy, there should be been at least 5000 if the universe was old. Also from each of the observed 200 super novas, there are no stars being formed.

Issue 3 - Layered Sediments
The evolutionist view is that the sedimentary layers are millions of years old.
The creationist view is these layers are a result of a global flood covered all the land. (not a local flood)
It is fact that water deposits will form into layers, this is repeatable in labs.
The grand canyon layers are all sedimentary. The "geologic" column is only in the text books. That is no where on earth do you find the fossil record in the order in the textbook the fossil. i.e. Triobytes -> dinosuar -> birds ... .
An example of the fossil record supporting creation, is that you never find a transition record of humans or any phylum. (Phylum is roughly how we would describe "Kinds" in the Bible.) There is no dino bird (the archaeopteryx was a fully formed bird with the 2 of the 5 sacks that birds have, yes it had teeth so what several old birds had teeth.) I recommend the book "Evolution: the fossils still say no".

Issue 4 - Moon Craters
I just recently happen to got into an argument with a local preacher here and he wanted to know about the moon cratering supporting a young age. So I written a document around it around 6 pages long
I installed drop box so I could share the document I written if you want to read it, my file
To summarize:
The argument is the moon is old because there are lots of creators. The marinas (dark areas) are lava filled areas. Theses are located roughly in one corner of the moon, yet if the moon was evenly bombarded the dark spots will be all over the moon, not just in 1 corner.
There are ghost craters which are lava filled creators which must of happen after the first impact. but since there are so many of these, this musst of happen 500million years after the first impact. why wait so long to be filled in?
In the document I also talked about how the moon as a 1.3Billion year age limit otherwise the Earth would of destroyed it before it assembled.

Issue 5 - Distance of Light
There is a creationist cosmology, look up Russell Humphrey, he had several ideas, basically the stars/galaxies was created very close to earth. This would of put earth below the event horizon of a black hole. The size of the black hole's event horizon was very large, think no like a vortex but a pan pressed down and earth in the center.
In the Bible, God says he stretched out the heavens 17 times. So in this cosmology, God stretched out space and thus the event horizon shrunk. Anything out of the event horizon will have time started, anything below would still be paused in time. So hence the outer universe could easily have 13 billion years yet the earth only 6000 years.
I suggest reading a book called "Dismantling the big bang" by Alex Williams & John Hartnett, it shows the problems of the big bang and even compared it to the creationist model and even talked about so of the other models out there. It first ripped into the big bang, which I liked reading, then it ripped into the creationist model, which I though, wtf? but it's only being consistent. At the end of the book it does a occams razor about which view supports the evidence based on the number of assumptions required at each stage.
Creationist do not believe God created light in transit to fake an old universe as that would make God a lier. That was a big problem in the past as we didn't know how to explain distant light but we now have a model which does.

Whats most annoying with modding is that people sometimes mod me funny! wtf, I wasn't making jokes! arggg!
The second annoying thing is it limits how many times I can reply to people questioning me.
I agree that If people where going to mod against me, they should do it by modding you up.

Comment: Re:An Alternative (Score -1) 84

by MadFan (#40339991) Attached to: Tropical Lakes On Saturn Moon Could Expand Options For Life
Hello Mr2cents,

You have missed the point of the starting assumptions of a creationist.
Creationist will hold the starting assumption that Titan was created already in orbit around Saturn, hence there will be no accretion disk.

So it is a logical fallacy to try to push a nebular theory into the creation model then use that to discredit the creationist model.

If the creationist scenario is correct, we would not expect it to be forming.
The rational of my conclusion for Titan is young is the atmosphere indicates recent creation by lack of ethane from the 4.9% methane in the air. UV light would of broken down the methane completely in just 10 million years. But in 4.5 billion years, we would expect to see such high concentrations of ethane if Methane was constantly being regenerated yet we don't see that.


Cheers

Comment: Re:An Alternative (Score -1) 84

by MadFan (#40323495) Attached to: Tropical Lakes On Saturn Moon Could Expand Options For Life
Neither, I am pointing out that abiogenesis is impossible and it's only hope in evolution that is used to say there is life on Titan. (because if it happen here it must happen everywhere)
And as for evolution, you must have long ages hence the reinterpretation of the facts with speculations that Titan is refilling it's lakes.
So I was pointing out the philosophy used to come to his conclusion, not any facts of science.

Comment: An Alternative (Score -1, Troll) 84

by MadFan (#40319949) Attached to: Tropical Lakes On Saturn Moon Could Expand Options For Life
Alternative story:

Instead of Titan being billions of years old, the evidence suggest that Titan is only thousands of years old because of the evaporation of the methane.
Yet the desire to prove life on other planets/moons requires for long ages hence the interpretation of replenishment of the pools. Evidence plesae?'

I know its not popular to say it, but there is no life on Titan, abiogenesis doesn't happen and no amount of speculation will put it there.
Cheers

Comment: Re:Putting their money where their mouth is? (Score 0) 640

by MadFan (#40270639) Attached to: South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks

1 - It doesn't matter if he knew or not knew he was writing scripture. But in all probabilities he probably knew it was going to be scripture as when it was written in 63AD, he is referring to both old testament and almost all of the New Testament.

By the time 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, all of the New Testament books had already been written except for 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and the apostle John's writings
Inspiration

I remember in the OT one prophet didn't know what the hell he was saying but still knew he was writing scripture so even understanding (at the time) is not a requirement. He ask God what is the meaning of this and God said to shut up and just write it, to paraphrase it a little.

2 - Of course not. Only place God written directly is in exodus with the 10 commandments, Jesus's speeches in the NT were recorded by the every ones you are trying to degrade. If you can't trust their testimony of what they say, how you trust what they said Jesus said?
The vast majority of the text are by humans (sometimes openly declaring to mouthing for God, but still humans).

3 - The inspiration of the scriptures are actually attributed to God, Holy Spirit and Jesus.

  • Father Hebrews 10:5
  • Son Philippians 2:7
  • Holy Spirit Luke 1:35

The are many attributes that are assigned to all three. Scroll Down a little to see the list
But again God has signed his code. There are hepatic structures that would only be there if the Old and New testaments where put together. Did you even try to make a fictional genealogy that matches Mathew's hepatic structures like in the video I linked to before?
No human could of done that, go on, give it a try and you will see how hard it is, yet it's in there and linking both OT and NW, and the genealogy of Christ. It's really amazing.

Yes some Christians will be speaking on behalf of God, like when they give prophesy but there have only been 12 disciples and only recorded 19 apostles.
According to 1Cor. 1:1 & 9, to be an Apostle you must have seen the Lord, and been called to be one directly by Him.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_apostles_were_there#ixzz1xKsPe07E

So you know the genealogy recorded has many limitations on it which meant it could only be written by someone not human (inspired), because of how complex it is. Please try an make a fictional geneology in the much easier language of English but still matching the hepatic structures as talked about in the video. Do it now, open up word, make up some shit up of about 20 dead people in the lineage and see if you get even 3 rules mention within hour. (There are actually 70 rules in the text in the greek language which is much more precise than english)

So when you post back, tell me how far you got with your genealogy please. It is an impossible thing to do in your life time, even with super computers. But that will let you know God inspired Paul what to say down to the letter.

I really need to sleep now,
Good night, TheLink, Cheers Madfan

Comment: Re:Putting their money where their mouth is? (Score 0) 640

Jesus didn't say it directly, but his name is on the book.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16

The link I gave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbaJfRwYxM about the Bible Heptadic Structure showing how carefully the text is written. No human and especially no fisherman from 2000 years ago could of written this down in geek. This is a signature from the Creator himself. Why would he sign something about himself unless it is true?

The bible is full of these things which no human without a computer could of even possibly do this. So God has put his signature in the text, does that mean he supports what is written?

Side note: With the same formula you can calculate PI to 4 decimal places with the first verse of genesis, you can get "e" with the other big creation verse which is the first verse of Luke. E wasn't discovered until the 16th century yet it's encoded in the numerical value of the text. God has eternity on his hands so he place these things all throughout the bible. It's amazing to discover these things.

I dont say the bible should be taken literally, it should be taken as plain reading. Palms is poetry, Revelation is prophecy, Matthew, Luke, Mark & John are a historical account, which do contains parables that Jesus spoke, but his genealogy isn't a parable. it records the names of people who lived and died. The Jews were really big on tracking their ancestry until the Romans retook Israel in 73ad

Plus Jesus to fulfill prophecy in the old testament he had to came from the line of David and from a woman not a seed from the man. Hence is ancestry is recorded.

Have you watched the video I gave you and made a fictional family tree with the limitations he gave? Mathew does it.

Have a good weekend.
Cheers

Comment: Re:Putting their money where their mouth is? (Score 0) 640

I dont view you as rude. I view this guy as rude: another post
I view rudeness as being insincere or actively hostile. Just speaking your mind may be blunt plus I am the one provoking this argument. :-)

But I am amazed you did and that you actually thought of my feelings. I am just too used to being put down because the others are trying to justify themselfs.
Thank you.

Comment: Re:Now watch... (Score 0) 640

That's because you're indoctrinated and have fallen into the black hole called faith

I could say the same to you, you choose to believe the evolution and a made up story of history.

Noah managed to gather all the animals in the first place

Noah did not gather the animals. The bible said the animals came to him. Read the text to answer your questions. Also a simple answer as to stopping the animals from eating each other is cages. You build walls around them to stop them making a mess in the boat. Really these are simple questions.

how to explain how he had room for the vast number of species, or the lack of a global flood in the geological record.

It is ridiculousness to think Noah carried all the species on land. The Bible said of each "Kind" not of each species.
You do not need to carry all of the current species we have today. The specification of the animals would of happen rapidly after the flood.
Hence you would only need to carry 20000-25000 kinds, otherwise you will need several cargo ships instead of just one cargo chip.
The Bible says "kind" which roughly translate as Phylum. For example: There are currently over 150 species of dogs but you only needed 2 wolfs (M&F) for the kind, from them they specified into the species we have now.

There is alot of evidence for a massive flood. There are huge sedimentary basins are all around the world. Map of sedimentary basins

The Grand Canyon which each of it's layers laid down in water.
The Three Sisters of Australia

Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene.

What's unscientific about it is that it is based on a childish myth invented by primitive people to explain their origins, and is no different than any of the other childish origin myths in existence. What's also unscientific about it is that the fossil and genetic record completely refute this childish story.

Again you are trying to attack the creditably of the source but not attacking the data directly. It's based on History, and no matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "i am hearing you", you still have not refuted this scenario. We humans almost have this technology now, yet you refuse to even admit to yourself that God would have this technology. Grow up and take this subject matter seriously instead of yelling "I dont want to believe it, its Christain voodoo magic" to paraphrase what you are doing.
Again you have refused to talk about what evidence does the fossil record provide with transitional forms? All phylum are fully formed in the fossil record when ever they are found. The extreme lack of any transitional forms screams creationism. The problem is so great for evolutionists that they invented another theory called punctuated equilibrium, where suddenly out of nowhere the species, gaps, evolves without leaving any trace. Hence the lack of fossils now becomes evidence for evolution.

They believe that can happen, and there's a natural progression of species in the fossil and genetic record, and yet they can't believe in evolution as the origin of species. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be their childish Bible stories holding them back?

Again you didn't answer my question, please define your "evolution". Us creationists believe in what operational science can show. We Christains take the Bible as our starting assumptions. You evolutionists believe in things unproven in science like increases in the information of DNA & abiogenesis.
How do you define Evolution? Things changing or things increasing in complexity over time. (note the GTE isn't a guided "force",, but since it "happen", you must explain how it happen.

Do you mean it is increasing in complexity from Bacteria to something which is not a bacteria? Natural Selection, Mutations says that can't happen. Where does this magical information come from? What phenomena produces it?

You just said it earlier, and now you dismiss it as impossible. I'm confused by your logic.

The classic formula for evolution is "Evolution = Natural Selection & Mutations" * time
. This definition of evolution is called the "Grand Theory of Evolution" (GTE). Thats the type of evolution believed to bring about dinosaurs. That equation uses real phenomenons proven by operational science but both phenomenons work against Evolution. How can a theory with all the sub parts which work agaist it survive?

First there is Natural Selection.
NS does not create anything, by it's very definition, it selects what is already in the gene pool.
This means it removes the variations that the population has. E.g. snow will slow down dear running away from dogs, hence short legged dears die quicker and are selected against. Soon the population will have lost it's short legged variation in the genome. That example showed loss of information not wings growing on their backs.
Another example is if the dear have a deformed leg from birth. It can't run, so it dies quickly.

Second there is Mutations.
Since NS doesn't not provide new characteristics (e.g. wings, or eyes that see x rays, in the population), that means the only game in town for evolutionists to provide the increase in information are mutations. Mutations are mistakes in the copying of the DNA.
Most mutations are either mostly neutral or very harmful. To date over 10,000 specific disease-causing mutations of the human genome have been identified.
A classic example of the evolution capability of mutations can be demonstrated by walking into a nuclear power plant's core, and after a couple of minutes you will soon start to turn green and say hulk smask, hulk bash. Oh wait, instead you will get cancer and might die, and your children will die slow horrible deaths as well very young in life with tumors, cancers, etc.., as demonstrated by the Australian army in 1950s when Britain tested nuclear bombs near the Australian army. Of course the British personal were wearing lead protection for the tests.

There have been a handful of beneficial mutations as well. Each known beneficial mutation so far has been the result of a functional structure being broken. Even in this most positive scenario observed, it shows the complete opposite of evolution. Note: Creationists are not against mutations being beneficial and not breaking something in the process, it just that its never been observed.

Now Time is also an enemy to the theory of evolution. There is currently 100-200 mutations for each new generation per human. This is actually a very conservative figure, The problem here is that the mutation rate (at 100 mutations per generation per person) over time in the population is increasing lineally. While Natural Selection is doing it's best to weed out the worst negative mutation, the vast majority are invisible to natural selection. The selection threshold is very high for both Bad and Good mutations.
The problem is that all the mutations are building up and the more mutations you have the worse off you are. Currently it is estimated that the human race would be extinct in 100,000 years but that just asks that question why are we still alive now? So Natural Selection is fighting Mutations in trying to keep the creature alive and both are working against evolution.

It's funny, you see a bird with teeth and you say "still a bird", and if you see a dinosaur with feathers you will say "still a dinosaur". What you want is every link to be filled in, ad infinitum, while ignoring the clear progression of the fossils we do have.

Are you aware that some reptiles have teeth, some do not. Some mammals have teeth, some do not. Should we be surprised that there are birds with teeth? The Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings. It's brains was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to it's transitional status. A number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore like other birds it's maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles only the mandible moves. Finally Archaeopteryx skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis, this indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This inturns indicates that the unique lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird. A bird's lung is a high performance lung designed to get as much oxygen in the blood and is very different to the bellow lungs of reptiles and mammals.

I would like even just the transitional forms to be presented. [sarcasm] But if you can go even further and do "ad infinitum" with the fossil record then yes please that would be assume and would put those annoying creationists to rest[/sarcasm]. but I feel you wont be able to do that.

Gould's position was one of "punctuated equilibrium", in that species would undergo rapid evolution and then remain fairly static.

Yes, hes the one arguing now the lack of evidence is now evidence.

You mention cells later on. What does the Bible say about them?

The bible never mentions cells.
Please show me the transitional forms between the Phylum. Note: I am not talking about species here like Great Dane and chiwawas, but between the two different phylum. These are not shown in the fossil record. As talked about in above, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed and functional bird, even if it has unusal characteristics like teeth and long tail. It's uniqueness in the fossils show that there is nothing before or after it in the record. Note: there are other birds before it in the fossil record.

Why does modern man arrive so late on the scene?

Mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb to the great flood.
People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.

Why can we find other human-like species before man came around? Why do we share so much genetic information with chimpanzees?

The best-known fossil apemen are the extinct australopithecines (the name means ‘southern ape’).
Teaching about Evolution on page 20 illustrates a series of five skulls:

  • Australopithecus afarensis (‘Lucy’)
  • A. africanus
  • early Homo
  • H. erectus
  • and H. sapiens (modern man)

However, many evolutionists disagree with this picture.
For example, Donald Johanson, the discoverer of ‘Lucy,’ places A. africanus on a side-branch not leading to man. Anatomist Charles Oxnard performed a detailed analysis of different bones of A. africanus and concluded that it did not walk upright in the human manner and was more distinct from both humans and chimpanzees than these are from each other.
More recently, Oxnard made the following comments about the australopithecines, including ‘Lucy’:

It is now recognized widely that the australopithecines are not structurally closely similar to humans, that they must have been living at least in part in arboreal [tree] environments, and that many of the later specimens were contemporaneous [living at the same time] or almost so with the earlier members of the genus Homo. see "C.E. Oxnard, The Order of Man (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984)"

As for common dna with chimpanzees I will quote a website:

chimpanzees share perhaps 95 percent to 99 percent of their genes with humans Gorillas may range from 90 percent to 99 percent. But this is not as impressive as it seems at first. Even mice have 70 percent to 90 percent of their gene structure in common with humans. In 2003, one study calculated only an 86.7% similarity while another, in 2006, revealed a genetic similarity of 94%. The results of the 2006 study created a major problem for evolutionary geneticists who had previously found that the DNA of the Rhesus macaque was 93% similar to human beings. Evolutionists believe that these monkeys branched off from our supposed common ancestor about 25 million years ago while chimpanzees branched off only six million years ago. According to evolutionary theory, this would indicate that human beings diverged from chimpanzees four times faster than from Rhesus monkeys. If the assumptions of evolution were true, we should expect to see a much more significant difference in the DNA of humans and the monkeys.2 Other recent findings add further complications to the similarities in DNA as evidence of evolution. In 2005, scientists discovered that bats and horses shared a higher degree of DNA similarity than cows and horses.3 This counters the naïve view that simple DNA comparisons will indicate degree of similarity in anatomy. All of these recent studies suggest that similarity in DNA is not nearly as significant as once believed.4

The similarity of the DNA isn't a good comparison to the physiological nature of the creature. How can we be 90% mouse or 50% banana?
Are you half banana? or 90% mouse?

There's nothing wrong with it, but it is wrong to ignore the evidence which does exist, and it does not support your childish creation myth

Again please these transitional forms. (not of species but of phylum.) What turned into a bat.? what turned into a platypus? Show me a half bird half dino and not something fully bird.

Your link is full of speculations. e.g.

Another theory holds that the turbulent shores of the ancient coastal waters may have served as a mammoth laboratory

Water is toxic to the chemicals before the cell wall is up.

Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are freely reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water.

Wikipedia doesn't talk about the handedness order of the proteins or how intermediate steps still destroy any chains.
RNA, like DNA, will not form outside of already living cells. This site does not describe how and which chemical formed and how it happen, it is just one big propaganda page. Show me in a lab how these chemicals can form.

I have spent too long showing the assumptions in your post, I hope you can see how you are blinded by your belief in evolution when the evidence do not support it. Think about how all the sub components are working against it, how it has never been observed by man's own eyes. Science is about having a theory and testing it out, but evolution is not testable (how do you prove dinosaurs grew wings 120 million years ago in the lab?) and the parts which can be tested actively refuse it, like Natural Selection, Mutations, Gene Duplication, etc... but I know it doesn't matter what I show you as you have chosen to believe in this and no amount of logic will stop you.

I wish you a good weekend.

Cheers

Comment: Re:Putting their money where their mouth is? (Score 0) 640

by MadFan (#40248847) Attached to: South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks

This link gives a great break down of the 2 lines. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932 also look at the image to see it visually.

The argument of Did God use evolution to create, well I know of a good video to watch about it. From creation.com (warning an hour long)
The site creation.com as you can guess is my favorite site. Go on and explore that site and see what you think compared to the evidence. They even have a series of videos in the media section.

The reason evolution means God did nothing is because the belief behind evolution means everything does things on their own, and no outside interference.
Dawkins says its deluded too
Classic talk about this doesn't work with the God of the Bible.

Comment: Re:Now watch... (Score 0) 640

by MadFan (#40246527) Attached to: South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks

I take Genesis to be a observational record not mythology. Noah's arc is the most stable designed for a vessel in water, it's so good that the dimensions are used by super tankers. The Arc was a super tanker.

Are you aware that the lower rib of a Human is the only bone in the body that will regrow back if it is removed proving the protected sheet around the bone isn't destroyed. The concept of God putting to sleep Adam gave the idea to the man who invented anesthesia.
Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene. Soon Man will be able to do that.
Yet you think God who is much more advanced and made Adam (think star trek transporter beam) and so has the blueprints already is unscientific???

Also on a theological response, by making Eve from Adam, no one can say females are not humans. People would of tried that if they could.

Define the word evolved please.
- Do you mean that it is changing? Creationist believe that happens. Natural Selection, Mutations & Gene duplication attest to that.
- Do you mean it is increasing in complexity from Bacteria to something which is not a bacteria? Natural Selection, Mutations says that can't happen. Where does this magical information come from? What phenomena produces it?

The word Evolution has several different meanings and some of the meanings creationists agree with, and some others we do not. We creationist agree only that which operation science can prove. Of course once one of the bacteria changes are observed then you will say that is evolution of another type of change. That is the classic Fallacies of Ambiguity. Hence I ask what type of change are you referring too? because in the above example, they are devolving from a functional state to a less functional state. The opposite of the grand theory of evolution. (sometimes the devolving can be an advantage but it does not show evolution)

Is it wrong to point out the major holes in the evidence you proclaim to support your views, do not exist?
We are not talking about fossils inbetween species here, We are talking between 2 totally different creatures.
These things lived from 100s of millions of years, we would have millions of these fossils yet there is linking between the phylum.

As Charles himself said which is still true to this day:

Charles Darwin:
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413

Gould said:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
S.J. Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.

Could you clearify what you mean by

Of course your ancient religious text makes no mention of this kind of "design", and includes ridiculous stories which contradict it

Of course the Bible will say that didn't happen because evolution is a made up story, it didn't happen. Operation Science says it can't happen. The fossil record doesn't say it happen despite how much you pray it does.

Where are the links between these phylum? If it is so clear to you, (but not the experts) show me the transition fossil showing the half bird half dino, half reptile half tutose (showing the ribs being inverted to match), half whale half Pakicetus.
These are basic questions and if you declare this story to be correct, then you can show it in the fossil record. Yet the record only shows fully show creatures and not transitional between the phylum.

As a basic question, tell me how did the first cell came about? Operational science in 1864 by Louis Pasteur has proven cells only come from other cells. The "simple" cell in it's extreme complexities greater than a space shuttle of anything else man has every made or designed is self evident of design so much that you will have to be willfully blind to not see it. Most atheists I know choose to still believe by faith despite the evidence in ridiculousness probabilities just to avoid the logical conclusion.

Comment: Re:Ah, case in point. (Score 0) 640

by MadFan (#40241525) Attached to: South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks
Ah, my mistake, the standard way is in the ocean. I am wrong on that. To avoid bones they say mainly plankton and bacteria.
Wouldn't they still get washed away? otherwise we would see this happening all over the sea beds.

Anyway, I did a bit more searching and found an article about an oil field under granite which means the oil field was not made only by dead sea creatures. Granite link
Cheers
Chris

Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.

Working...