So basically, most creationists believe in creationism because it's taught to them at birth, and thus it's more feasible than 'we came from apes', one of the misconceptions that spread to add a fairy tale component to evolution. So, in the unfathomable stars in the unfathomable galaxes in an unfathomable universe, it is more likely that an omniscent being that originated from no place --- which you somehow find to be a more feasible explanation for life than an organism could evolve over billions of years into the diverse animals that inhabit Earth today --- the same way everything came from nothing, another unfathomable question.

Of course, with the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution and the fact that it's the basis for several studies today, and the fact that the Bible has mixtures of stories from a collection of religions all over the world (Jesus' halo = the halo of Bel of the Phoenicians, among numbers of other things) world, you still believe Genesis is correct.

Okay.

wrote:the Bible has stayed the same, save translations, since it's been written.

That made me crack a smile.

wrote:That made me crack a smile.

Well it has.

wrote:Ianna, if things can change over time, why can't they, over millions of years, change form completely? We didn't evolve from Monkeys, but we had common ancestors. There is irrefutable fossil evidence that links us. Look at us, we are vertually identical. Saying Evolution doesn't happen is like saying genes don't mutate.
One thing I don't understand is if you believe Genesis literally, then how can you believe that Humans develop over time, if God created us exactly how we are now?...

Well, first of all I don't believe in millions of years. But moving on...

Things mainly change over time because of gene recombination. From what I've gotten of evovlution, it seems things are getting new traits randomly somehow.

I'm a bit confused on the monkeys part. Are you saying we didn't evolve from monkeys but had ansectors with them? Or all humans had common ansectors (it's almost ten and I'm tired).

And as said before I think we develop over time because of gene recombination and certain environment factors can play into that.

wrote: Anmaximander?

I'm not sure what that is, nor if it is spelt right, but The Theory Of Evolution has never changed since Darwin.

Anaximander (sp?) was a Greek philospher who stated that life emerged from the sea and grew into what is today, or something a long those lines.

wrote:As for taking Genesis literally - is that literally as in God created the Earth in seven of our days, or seven of his days?

Seven of our days is seven of his days, I believe. The whole verse about 1,000 days being a day to God is about his patience.

wrote:Of course, with the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution and the fact that it's the basis for several studies today, and the fact that the Bible has mixtures of stories from a collection of religions all over the world (Jesus' halo = the halo of Bel of the Phoenicians, among numbers of other things) world, you still believe Genesis is correct.

Actually, I think people borrowed from Genesis, but that's just my opinion.


I haven't read all the Bible in a long time but I'm not sure I've ever read about Jesus's halo. I think it's just a thing in paintings. But of course I'm not always right, the Bible is a long book, well books, actually.

wrote:  So basically, most creationists believe in creationism because it's taught to them at birth, and thus it's more feasible than 'we came from apes', one of the misconceptions that spread to add a fairy tale component to evolution. So, in the unfathomable stars in the unfathomable galaxes in an unfathomable universe, it is more likely that an omniscent being that originated from no place --- which you somehow find to be a more feasible explanation for life than an organism could evolve over billions of years into the diverse animals that inhabit Earth today --- the same way everything came from nothing, another unfathomable question.

It might have been taught to me at birth, but I didn't believe until two years ago. Long story about research, conviction, and rebellion that's way off topic. But even then I really didn't like the idea that we all of a sudden came by chance onto the Earth.

Another thing I don't understand...how did this organism become multiple things? I suppose something to do with asexual reproduction?

Well, it's kind of beyond human minds except God has always been there and always will be.

wrote:Actually, I think people borrowed from Genesis, but that's just my opinion.

...They borrowed from something written 2,500 years in the future? The halo was worn in worship to the sun god.

Your whole argument is based off the fact that you are not an evolutionist, have not studied into evolution, do not comprehend evolution, think evolution's ideas are ridiculous, but you know basically nothing about evolution and the proof that backs it. Want to know why evolution is not scientific law? It's quite simple, we can't prove it without a shadow of a doubt, as scammers like Ken Hovind say to deal a low blow and try to discredit evolution.

As for the halo itself, christian art adopts it as a symbol of righteousness, holiness. The same way it adopts the thought that Jesus was a frail, long-haired, mystical looking man of pale complexion. Which raises the question of, why do pictures show a middle-aged caucasian man, born in a place where dark skin is dominant. Why is it that Jews forbidded men to have long hair, but Yeshua is often depicted as such? His image is a tarnished thing, changed by the Roman Catholic Church and altered continuously.

As a matter of fact, those translations you mentioned are plentiful, and add a very noticeable change in prose throughout each translation. The exact words of the Bible are unknown, let alone the real content that has been excluded from our viewing pleasure...

There are quite a few interesting stories to be told relating to Jesus, but I'll name two: birth and death.

Here's a good old story from mythology. Nimrod was informed by his soothsayers that a great prince would be born the same time a star shines brightly in the sky.

Sacrifice for the betterment of mankind? Saying that he will return to redempt all men? It's going to be a crowded sky the day of the Coming, seeing as how the Mayan Maize God, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna, and all of those good people who sacrificed themselves will be here too.

But, I am obliged by morals to allow you to have your own freedom of religion, but it does sadden me to see something say something like 'I don't believe that it's possible life just sprang up on Earth.' It didn't spring up, it was a gradual process and the life of organisms is a mere blink of the eye in the life of Earth. Since I'm under the impression all astronomers aren't lying about the vastness of the universe, you have to accept the fact that it's not that incredible a chance that (out of what, 9 x 10^9999999 --- just threw in some random nines, for the sake of showing you that it's a massive amount --- planets?) one could sustainlife.

Ianna: You say there is no concrete evidence for evolution, but there is definitly no concrete evidence for God either.

A note on the evolution of humans, why is it that we could not have developed from apes (note that I did not say monkeys)? They have the same kind of skeletal structure to us, the same organs, you name it. It would take a good few hundred thousand years, but it is very feasable that we developed from a species of ape, just one. A species that no longer exists because it evolved. The thing with evolution is, its reliant on the environment. I mean, look at the world now, it is full of humans, but there are different species of humans: caucasian, asian, african. All of us have the same type of body, but are adapted different to suit our environment, dark skin, small eyes, big feet. All developed for a purpose. To me evolution seems very possible, and I compleatly believe in it...im curious to know the argument against it.

wrote:Well, first of all I don't believe in millions of years. But moving on...

Oh? What about carbon-14 dating? Fossils of animals that don't exist on the Earth any more?

wrote:Things mainly change over time because of gene recombination. From what I've gotten of evovlution, it seems things are getting new traits randomly somehow.

Well done. Your (limited) knowledge of evolution is right. New traits appear randomly. Why? Because gene copying isn't perfect. Without going into the complicated chemistry of genetic replications, there's a chance that a mistake or mistakes will be made every time a gene is copied. The chances are higher in some species that others - eg viruses. Most of these mistakes won't change anything, but swapping a base on certain genes will make a difference - anything from a different coloured pigment in the eye to the cell replication going into overdrive (that's a cancer).
If the trait given to the animal/plant/microorganism is benificial to it, it will be more likely to survive, breed, and pass it on to its kids.

wrote:I'm a bit confused on the monkeys part. Are you saying we didn't evolve from monkeys but had ansectors with them? Or all humans had common ansectors (it's almost ten and I'm tired).

We didn't evolve from monkeys, but our ancestors were the same. Monkeys as we see them now didn't exist millions of years ago, but the same group of creatures evolved into humans and monkeys (and if you go back far enough, all mammals).

You've almost got it with gene recombination. All you need to do is go down a few levels in scale to changing the individual base pairs making up the genes. If genes didn't mutate, then sure, people would all look different, for example, by getting different combinations of genes. But the species as a whole wouldn't change and grow into different species.

wrote:Seven of our days is seven of his days, I believe. The whole verse about 1,000 days being a day to God is about his patience.

Ah, right, so you believe the whole world was created in seven days a bit over four thousand years ago, going by dates in the Bible. Fair enough; I've already addressed the millions of years thing.

wrote:Actually, I think people borrowed from Genesis, but that's just my opinion.

As Krim mentioned, the level of technology of the early civilisations was apparently pretty damn impressive. Our civilisation hasn't managed time machines yet.

wrote:It might have been taught to me at birth, but I didn't believe until two years ago. Long story about research, conviction, and rebellion that's way off topic. But even then I really didn't like the idea that we all of a sudden came by chance onto the Earth.

Ignoring evidence and everything else, you'd rather believe that a supernatural force suddenly created us than believe that somewhere in our vast universe, over untold millions of years, life evolved from a simple self-replicating protein which was itself created by a lucky chemical reaction out of the near infinite number of reactions that have happened over the course of the universe's existance?

wrote:Another thing I don't understand...how did this organism become multiple things? I suppose something to do with asexual reproduction?

In a way, yes. It was a protein, probably tiny, that was able to self-replicate. Exactly how isn't known to any reasonable level of certainty, but perhaps a group of these molecules could react together in such a way that they'd catalyse the production of more of these molecules?

wrote:Well, it's kind of beyond human minds except God has always been there and always will be.

You can't or won't contemplate the fact that you were created by chance reactions over many millions of years, but you happily believe that you were created by a 'God' that was created by... what?

Oh, and you say you became Christian after research. Apparently this research didn't manage to look at evolution at all?

And what Krim said.

I hate being gone. I have to catch up.

Ok...here it goes....

wrote:...They borrowed from something written 2,500 years in the future? The halo was worn in worship to the sun god.

wrote: As for the halo itself, christian art adopts it as a symbol of righteousness, holiness. The same way it adopts the thought that Jesus was a frail, long-haired, mystical looking man of pale complexion. Which raises the question of, why do pictures show a middle-aged caucasian man, born in a place where dark skin is dominant. Why is it that Jews forbidded men to have long hair, but Yeshua is often depicted as such? His image is a tarnished thing, changed by the Roman Catholic Church and altered continuously.

I looked it up right after I posted that and saw no where in the Bible mentioning Jesus having a halo. It was only artists and they have nothing to do with the Bible.

And I agree that his image has been tarnished.

wrote: Ianna: You say there is no concrete evidence for evolution, but there is definitly no concrete evidence for God either.

A note on the evolution of humans, why is it that we could not have developed from apes (note that I did not say monkeys)? They have the same kind of skeletal structure to us, the same organs, you name it. It would take a good few hundred thousand years, but it is very feasable that we developed from a species of ape, just one. A species that no longer exists because it evolved. The thing with evolution is, its reliant on the environment. I mean, look at the world now, it is full of humans, but there are different species of humans: caucasian, asian, african. All of us have the same type of body, but are adapted different to suit our environment, dark skin, small eyes, big feet. All developed for a purpose. To me evolution seems very possible, and I compleatly believe in it...im curious to know the argument against it.

Well, actually, there is fact. It's just the way you interpert it. Evolutionists and Creationist intepert it different ways.

A lot of animals have similar DNA and such like us and apes, right? If someone creates a chair then a table it's not going to look like two people did it and probably has some similarities. Well, like evolutionists say that's proof for evolution, I say it's proof that we have a common creator.

wrote:You can't or won't contemplate the fact that you were created by chance reactions over many millions of years, but you happily believe that you were created by a 'God' that was created by... what?

I've tried looking at that way, but it seemed all wrong to me.

God wasn't created he has always been. To put it in a reasonable manner, he is outside of time. He has no beginning in time and has always exsisted.

wrote:In a way, yes. It was a protein, probably tiny, that was able to self-replicate. Exactly how isn't known to any reasonable level of certainty, but perhaps a group of these molecules could react together in such a way that they'd catalyse the production of more of these molecules?

This does sound reasonable, in a way. Obviously, my textbook did not have explanations for evolution, which is were I got my research.

wrote: Ah, right, so you believe the whole world was created in seven days a bit over four thousand years ago, going by dates in the Bible. Fair enough; I've already addressed the millions of years thing.
Oh? What about carbon-14 dating? Fossils of animals that don't exist on the Earth any more?

Yep.

Ok, carbon-14 dating. You know how it works, right? So I won't bother to explain that...

First point: It can only be used on things once living.
Second Point: 14C decays so that half of the amount will convert back back to 14N in 5,730 or so years. So after 5,730 more years half that will be left. This leads to anything over 50,000 years having no 14C that can be detected. So millions of years is impossible.
Third Point: Archaeologists don't always regard 14C as absolute.
Fourth Point: Also, since volcanoes produce carbon dioxide that's depleted in 14C, this might cause fossils to seem older than they really are.

And there probably are holes here because I didn't explain carefully enough but if you have any questions...

wrote:Ignoring evidence and everything else, you'd rather believe that a supernatural force suddenly created us than believe that somewhere in our vast universe, over untold millions of years, life evolved from a simple self-replicating protein which was itself created by a lucky chemical reaction out of the near infinite number of reactions that have happened over the course of the universe's existance?

Evidence can go both ways in this, you know.

But I'd rather believe in created for a reason than luck.

Wanting to believe in something that is pretty and prim is only a form of self-isolation...

I didn't say it was mentioned in the Bible, because Jesus wouldn't have worn a halo because, that's the sign of angels, is it not? The modernized angels, not the real biblical forty-headed monsters of flame which kick total ass. But he is often depicted as such as another thing to give him a sense of divinity. Perhaps I went off on a tangent with this, though.

Looking at it from the viewpoint that it is correct, but it seemed wrong? You still retained biased for your side, and you probably aren't as open-minded as you lead yourself to believe. But it is a manner of upbringing, influences, or if it is your belief, possibly divine influence.

Carbon 14 dating isn't the only measurement of time we have anyway. I'd like to see your explanation that discredits the Law of Superpositioning and all that good stuff, and how we count rock by layers to determine the age. You're basing your argument off the fact that, since the dating is not absolutely proved, that it is a vague subject and anything concerning it must obviously be vague and have a level of impossibility behind in. You can believe that a being has always existed out of time, but you can't believe in the rather good chance one planet out of numerous could support life?

But, since I am unable to disprove a negative and really should not tempt fate, I believe in evolution and possible divine intervention that aided it. Do you actually think we were going to reach some conclusion by arguing on a heated subject that has been a major controversy for several years now? This argument is pointless and all it'd accomplish is destroying that sense of protection instilled in you (but remember, if you go against the Bible, you burn for eternity. Sounds like scare tactics that have worked for millenia. Ouch.)

:| Touche.

EDIT: Since you are talking about how unbelievable the date of 4.5 billion years is, show me some facts that would support a young Earth of thousands instead of millions of years.

Ianna wrote:

wrote: Ianna: You say there is no concrete evidence for evolution, but there is definitly no concrete evidence for God either.

A note on the evolution of humans, why is it that we could not have developed from apes (note that I did not say monkeys)? They have the same kind of skeletal structure to us, the same organs, you name it. It would take a good few hundred thousand years, but it is very feasable that we developed from a species of ape, just one. A species that no longer exists because it evolved. The thing with evolution is, its reliant on the environment. I mean, look at the world now, it is full of humans, but there are different species of humans: caucasian, asian, african. All of us have the same type of body, but are adapted different to suit our environment, dark skin, small eyes, big feet. All developed for a purpose. To me evolution seems very possible, and I compleatly believe in it...im curious to know the argument against it.

Well, actually, there is fact. It's just the way you interpert it. Evolutionists and Creationist intepert it different ways.

A lot of animals have similar DNA and such like us and apes, right? If someone creates a chair then a table it's not going to look like two people did it and probably has some similarities. Well, like evolutionists say that's proof for evolution, I say it's proof that we have a common creator.

True fact shouldnt need interpretation. True fact cannot be argued with. Something that is true fact is mutation, we see it happening in bacteria all the time, you have said it yourself. Another term for mutation is evolution, these bacteria are rapidly evolving to deal with the changes to their environment.

As for the table chair argument, I see where your coming from, but I still dont see why you are picking God over evolution...darwinism is far more plausable.

wrote: True fact shouldnt need interpretation. True fact cannot be argued with. Something that is true fact is mutation, we see it happening in bacteria all the time, you have said it yourself. Another term for mutation is evolution, these bacteria are rapidly evolving to deal with the changes to their environment.

As for the table chair argument, I see where your coming from, but I still dont see why you are picking God over evolution...darwinism is far more plausable.

You're right. But both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. They see it differently because God isn't in the evolutionists equation. And to some degree, evolution is within creation, such as adaption. The Bible isn't against science, you know.

Like I said, it's all the way you see things. First off, I find things more scientifically explainable with the Bible. Of course, if I said that in any sort of sciene convention I'd be laughed out, but hey.

I'd like to interrupt the points we've all made to ask this one:

If you don't believe the Bible is true, what do you believe about it?

The Bible is a collection of stories and legends created with the main purpose of instilling morals into people, with the added effects of protecting them from the terror of the 'what happens when I die?' question, and other similar things.

And it's the good old argument style: "I can't counter your arguments, Krim and Sentynel, so I'm going to ask a question at a tangent from what we've been discussing so far!"

I'm interested in how you believe in some adaptation, except that there have only been four thousand years or so for it to happen in?

Further to what Krim said about rock layers, what about ice caps? The atmospheric data in them, for example, that goes back millions of years?

Finally, I'd suggest you go and read the Wikipedia page on evolution and then come back to us with arguments.

- looks for a connection with bacteria mutating and God that isn't completely irrelevant. - o_O

True, it is possible they go hand-in-hand, and it is true that science and religion do work together in some points, but to say the Bible isn't against science? Then why do we have an evolutionist/creationism debate, other than creationism being a form of science, in ways? Why does the Bible say the Earth is 6,000 years old, and science says 4.5 billion? Maybe the Bible is against it in ways, but who knows if God/any gods are. - shrugs. - Interesting enough, in the Goetia, demons teach men things like Algebra and Astronomy, even though the Goetia has been interpreted to be a mental state of mind where portions of your brain are enhanced through a mixture of ceremonial perfumes and sounds...but, mhm...I have not read many accounts of angels.

The subject still is Creation vrs. Evolution, not, Does Evolution and Creationism Go Together? We are arguing the points of one and the other, not if they go together. Creationism does not go along with Evolution, even though the Bible and Christianity may. The topic is not focused on that, so, allow us to return to the debate. :)

wrote: The Bible is a collection of stories and legends created with the main purpose of instilling morals into people, with the added effects of protecting them from the terror of the 'what happens when I die?' question, and other similar things.

And it's the good old argument style: "I can't counter your arguments, Krim and Sentynel, so I'm going to ask a question at a tangent from what we've been discussing so far!"

I've been countering them. But since you asked me what I believed on certain points of evolution, I decided to find out what you thought of the Bible.

wrote: I didn't say it was mentioned in the Bible, because Jesus wouldn't have worn a halo because, that's the sign of angels, is it not? The modernized angels, not the real biblical forty-headed monsters of flame which kick total ass. But he is often depicted as such as another thing to give him a sense of divinity. Perhaps I went off on a tangent with this, though.

Looking at it from the viewpoint that it is correct, but it seemed wrong? You still retained biased for your side, and you probably aren't as open-minded as you lead yourself to believe. But it is a manner of upbringing, influences, or if it is your belief, possibly divineCarbon 14 dating isn't the only measurement of time we have anyway. I'd like to see your explanation that discredits the Law of Superpositioning and all that good stuff, and how we count rock by layers to determine the age. You're basing your argument off the fact that, since the dating is not absolutely proved, that it is a vague subject and anything concerning it must obviously be vague and have a level of impossibility behind in. You can believe that a being has always existed out of time, but you can't believe in the rather good chance one planet out of numerous could support life?

Well, it seemed like you did as you said:...and the fact that the Bible has mixtures of stories from a collection of religions all over the world (Jesus' halo = the halo of Bel of the Phoenicians, among numbers of other things) world, you still believe Genesis is correct.

Is it possible to be truly openminded once you've made your decision? I believe that evolution has good points. In fact, some of it is correct dealing with the gene mutations. However, it takes out God, adds in millions of years, ect. And I just can't accept that.

wrote: True, it is possible they go hand-in-hand, and it is true that science and religion do work together in some points, but to say the Bible isn't against science? Then why do we have an evolutionist/creationism debate, other than creationism being a form of science, in ways?

Creationism, though arguably part of the Bible, is as you said, a science in some ways. And I consider it so, though some may not. It is people who debate, not the Bible and Evolution.

wrote:Why does the Bible say the Earth is 6,000 years old, and science says 4.5 billion?  Since you are talking about how unbelievable the date of 4.5 billion years is, show me some facts that would support a young Earth of thousands instead of millions of years.

Ok, then. I will.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast: The stars in The Milky Way rotate so fast that if the galaxy was more than a few hundred years old, then it wouldn't have it's spiral shape.

2. There's not enough mud in the sea: Every year a total of 24 billion tons of sediment is left on the sea floor. If we were billions of years old then the water wouldn't be so pretty.

3. History is too short: According to scientists who believe in an old earth, man began didn't record history for 1,000 years. However, Prehistoric people made monuments and cave paintings. So, why did they wait so long before using it all to record history?

4.Red Blood Cells in Dinosaurs: Red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones. They could only last for a few thousand years.

wrote:  Carbon 14 dating isn't the only measurement of time we have anyway. I'd like to see your explanation that discredits the Law of Superpositioning and all that good stuff, and how we count rock by layers to determine the age. You're basing your argument off the fact that, since the dating is not absolutely proved, that it is a vague subject and anything concerning it must obviously be vague and have a level of impossibility behind in.

Well, that's the only one you asked me about. Part of my argument is based of that, but since you didn't bother to ask me about any of the above things doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

Ok, here is my explanation that discredits all that good stuff:

I assume you all know of the flood in Genesis, right?

The thickness of rocks can be created over short periods of time with a lot of water or over long periods of time with very little water.

Let's assume there was a flood. If there was a global flood, it would have caused a lot of sediment to erode and cover organisms very quickly and they would be fossilized. This could also cause rock layers to form fast too.

wrote:You can believe that a being has always existed out of time, but you can't believe in the rather good chance one planet out of numerous could support life?

Seems illogical, don't it?

Can't explain that one really.

wrote:But, since I am unable to disprove a negative and really should not tempt fate, I believe in evolution and possible divine intervention that aided it. Do you actually think we were going to reach some conclusion by arguing on a heated subject that has been a major controversy for several years now? This argument is pointless and all it'd accomplish is destroying that sense of protection instilled in you (but remember, if you go against the Bible, you burn for eternity. Sounds like scare tactics that have worked for millenia. Ouch.)

Nope, but I did think I'd learn more.

No, actually it's made me research more and come to many conclusions I hadn't thought of before. Scare tatics don't work on me, sorry. If I want to go against the Bible I will, I just have no desire to.

If it's so pointless, why do you bother to reply?

wrote:Ok, then. I will.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast: The stars in The Milky Way rotate so fast that if the galaxy was more than a few hundred years old, then it wouldn't have it's spiral shape.

2. There's not enough mud in the sea: Every year a total of 24 billion tons of sediment is left on the sea floor. If we were billions of years old then the water wouldn't be so pretty.

3. History is too short: According to scientists who believe in an old earth, man began didn't record history for 1,000 years. However, Prehistoric people made monuments and cave paintings. So, why did they wait so long before using it all to record history?

4.Red Blood Cells in Dinosaurs: Red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones. They could only last for a few thousand years.

1. The Milky Way couldn't have formed in the first place if pure Newtonian gravity is used. It wouldn't magically form and then fly apart after a certain amount of time. There are various physicists working on exactly what is keeping the outer stars in place.
2. Ah, yes, but it doesn't just hang around there. Over the millions of years, as more layers build up, that section of the crust sinks and the lower layers melt into the magma inside the Earth. Some of the magma gets thrown out from volcanoes and the like. Basic rock cycle - isn't that one your science course?
3. "man began didn't record history for 1,000 years" - huh?
However, from what I'm understanding of that question, you're wondering why, if they could paint caves, why they didn't write down history. I'd say that the cave paintings and monuments are their record of history as it was important to them. If you're asking for something more complicated, writing down history is much more complicated than drawing a picture of someone hunting. It would require a complicated form of written language, something which simply hadn't been developed then.
4. ""This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK.

"My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC."

wrote:Well, that's the only one you asked me about. Part of my argument is based of that, but since you didn't bother to ask me about any of the above things doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

Ok, here is my explanation that discredits all that good stuff:

I assume you all know of the flood in Genesis, right?

The thickness of rocks can be created over short periods of time with a lot of water or over long periods of time with very little water.

Let's assume there was a flood. If there was a global flood, it would have caused a lot of sediment to erode and cover organisms very quickly and they would be fossilized. This could also cause rock layers to form fast too.

Different rocks would be deposited in the case of a massive global flood, however, and still not in the quantities we're talking about - you don't get kilometers of rock deposited on the bed of the see every few days, do you?

You haven't answered the atmospheric records in ice, either.

I'll add to what Sentynel has already said concerning 3 and 4.

wrote:3. History is too short: According to scientists who believe in an old earth, man began didn't record history for 1,000 years. However, Prehistoric people made monuments and cave paintings. So, why did they wait so long before using it all to record history?

Maybe because their life revolved around the hunt and what was depicted on monuments? What history were they supposed to fingerpaint about, baking a casserole for the Neanderthal Family down at 432 Poplar Street? Urg G'lak-Orgoth conquering the mystical lands of That Forest With All Ze Buffalo? I'm pretty sure they were more concerned with devouring the skulls of enemies than writing epic novels. :\

wrote:4.Red Blood Cells in Dinosaurs: Red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones. They could only last for a few thousand years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

No offense, but I suggest reading up on the facts before you try to use it as a fact...because I'm quite sure sites like this have scientific analyses that discredit most, if not all, of claims. And if you don't believe, why not read the recommended reading material or doing further research on your own?

:)

Krim wrote:
Maybe because their life revolved around the hunt and what was depicted on monuments? What history were they supposed to fingerpaint about, baking a casserole for the Neanderthal Family down at 432 Poplar Street?

Here, I'll give you a good summary of what that link says concerning the supposed blood found inside the dinosaur bone.

First, here is the summary given by the website:

Answers in Genesis Ministry generally, and Carl Wieland CEO-Australia specifically, are the principal sources of the creationists' repeated falsehood that dinosaurs are modern because blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in fresh bone. There are in fact four gross errors in just those few words that originated with Wieland and Answers in Genesis. These falsehoods are found commonly repeated throughout the creationist literature. We have demonstrated above that Carl Wieland, writing for Answers in Genesis, falsely represented this research to his readers. Minimally any objective reader should be satisfied that within the scientific literature, a) "red blood cells" have not been found in dinosaur bone, B) Schweitzer did not say that there were "red blood cells" in her specimens, c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone, e) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than "willful ignorance", and has actively lied to a trusting public. Schweitzer did make some early remarks to news reporters that were easily exploited by creationists such as Wieland. Even the popularized version of Schweitzer's work was distorted through selective quoting and direct misrepresentation. This is a common problem when trying to communicate science - anything that can be misinterpreted by creationists probably will be. But the test of science is in the scientific literature, and at no point did her speculative remarks enter the scientific dialog.



Here is mine:



What was observed a thinsectin slide prepared from the tabular bone of a T. rex that was remarkably well preserved. Not only are the creationists who believe this taking the work out of context and bloating it completely out of porportion, they go as far as to say that the bone was unmineralized, aka unfossilized. The bone was thought to be 'fresh', according to the published works of the creationists; asinine enough, this is derived from an article in Earth, a magazine that was by no means a scientific journal.

The claim was made that hemoglobin was present, when it was actually a form of iron known as heme. Not only do articles consistently state 'further research is required onto if this is actually, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a red blood cell', but it is quite obvious the remains of a red blood cell is by no means a red blood cell, the same way a skeleton is not a human. The actual present scientists who proposed the idea red blood cells were potentially present later debated with the creationists involved with the inane publications of creationism.

Also, let it be known that these creationists are NOT EXPERTS ON THE FIELD OF IMMUNOLOGY. It's guesswork to them on how long an organism could even survive, so they decide to go in favor of the Bible and say a few thousand years.

Basically, wrong. Just another one of the sadly twisted 'facts' that support a young Earth.

EDIT: I'd also like to raise the question about why dinosaurs are a few thousand years old, when the first recorded piece of literature (The Epic of Gilgamesh) was created around 3000 BC. Five thousand years ago, and Gilgamesh didn't encounter a triceratops? The Sumerians are evil!

:(

Ianna wrote: I'd like to interrupt the points we've all made to ask this one:

If you don't believe the Bible is true, what do you believe about it?

Ianna: There are many things that I believe the Bible is, and unfortunatly non of them are the word of God.
I believe that the Bible was the best scientific model for its time, it explained all of the questions that people wanted answering 2000 years ago. I believe that the Bible is a moral code, it tells us how we should live our lives and it instructs us about Social and Racial Harmony. I believe that the Bible is more than a book, it is a symbol of peoples faith, and becuase of that is has to be respected, and it should be realised that no matter how far fetched some of the stories may seem, there are definite element of truth in them.
What I also realise is that when the Bible was written, life was very different to how life is now. Society was male ruled, women were ostracized. Science was a very young art, people did not have the technology then that they have now. Becuase of this, I am compelled to beleive that the explanations of orogin that are in the Bible are not factual, they are speculative. However what I will say is, that in genesis, the order of creation is correct, but the time period is not, but as you say, 1 day for god is not necessarily 1 day for us.

That peace and order from the Bible is not necessarily peace and order. And we can find peace and order in Buddhism and the Koran. :)

Krim, every political model is perfect in theory, the hard part is getting everyone to follow it. My point being, that in theory, the Bible would lead to peace and order. And your right, we could find peace and order in Buddhism or Islam, no religion promotes war, its the interpretation of religious teachings that lead to conflict. One thing I will say is that whilst most religions provide an external body for the follow to rely on, religions such as Buddhism rely very much on the strength of the person themselves, which is why it does not work for everyone.

The Bible would not lead to peace and order, it told every person if they did not convert to christianity they would burn for eternity, and that all other religions are wrong. This would, inevitably, lead to conflict. And the Old Testament is also part of the Bible, where you can stone a servant for stealing from you.

People don't have enough strength nowadays because society has taken a turn for the worse. It probably relies a good deal on a mixture of media blindsiding people, parents being too brainwashed themselves to impart knowledge to their kids, and the fact a person could murder a thousand people and still get into heaven.

- shrugs. -

Anyway, we are going off on tangents. Stick to the point of the thread.