Evolution vs. Creation

[Langoliers]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>And the evidence for this is what exactly?

Langoliers wrote, "Now try and understand that the word dinosaurs is a word that was invented recently. The Bible does describe them however under other names "Behemoth" and "Dragons". Rather funny the Bible describing your dinosaurs thousands of years before the first bones were found."

A Fred Flintstone fan, I see.

Example:

Job 40:15-24
New International Version (NIV)

15 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God, yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?

[xxxooxxx]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
"experiment was shut down out of fear of and pressure from religious groups"
Sounds like a very simple process to facilitate...and to claim that making a very simple single cell organism in a science lab in some university or laboratory somewhere would all be shut down and abandoned and never tried again because of religious groups twenty years ago is quite unbelievable...
link please.

The truth is that Science, with all its technology, cannot even make a very simple, single cell organism.

[xxxooxxx]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Laugh your ass out to death you educated backward clown.

Actually, I love it when science zealots resort to name calling without any posted counter argument...all that means is that they have no counter argument, and indirectly validate my statement.lol

[xxxooxxx]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Science didn't tie ID to creationism. It was the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Try a religious forum if you want to discuss Christ. This is a science forum. Duh.

lol...you call this a science forum?

[Kong_]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the flood waters with the present-day seas...[snipped]

Amos 9:6

"American King James Version
It is he that builds his stories in the heaven, and has founded his troop in the earth; he that calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out on the face of the earth: The LORD is his name."

Job 38:1-11 New International Version

1 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

2 “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?

3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone—

7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,

10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place

11 when I said,‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’?"

Psalm 104:6-9
5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.

7 But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;

8 they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them.

9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth."

(a) You have in the above biblical texts, VERY ambiguous prose, that does NOT suggest that 'mountains rose' or 'ocean floors dropped'. In fact, EVERYTHING that a Supreme Being may have left us to investigate tells us that nothing of the sort EVER took place.

Geology, Paleontology, Geneology, Anthropology and possibly other sciences seperately tells us that there has NEVER been a world-wide flood in the past several million years.

(b) The Bible is rife with blind ascertations with NO evidence whatsoever. Your supplied verses (above) are not "evidence", but re-telling of earlier stories and without merit.

[Cybele]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Please back up your baseless claim with objective verifiable testable scientific evidence. Thanks in advance for not bothering.
Ever.

Funny how someone tries to use logic to explain something with substance and yet you counter it with "well show me empirical evidence or it never happened."

Well, then why don't you give us the evidence. You know how scientists have perfectly assembled fossilized dinosaur bones and yet NONE of them contain DNA. And yet the list of dinosaurs is astounding. No matter what you say we know that all bones contain DNA.

Start from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dinosaur...

[Kong_]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny how someone tries to use logic to explain something with substance and yet you counter it with "well show me empirical evidence or it never happened."
Well, then why don't you give us the evidence. You know how scientists have perfectly assembled fossilized dinosaur bones and yet NONE of them contain DNA. And yet the list of dinosaurs is astounding. No matter what you say we know that all bones contain DNA.
Start from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dinosaur...

"A study by ancient DNA researchers at Western Australia's Murdoch University has found the hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years. Most dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7803373/Fossil...

[xxxooxxx]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny how someone tries to use logic to explain something with substance and yet you counter it with "well show me empirical evidence or it never happened."
Well, then why don't you give us the evidence. You know how scientists have perfectly assembled fossilized dinosaur bones and yet NONE of them contain DNA. And yet the list of dinosaurs is astounding. No matter what you say we know that all bones contain DNA.
Start from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dinosaur...

They don't want evidences that goes against their science ideologies...they only except evidences that support their own secular views.

Their claim of one of bias impartiality.lol

[xxxooxxx]

( thier claim is one of bias impartiality)

[xxxooxxx]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
"A study by ancient DNA researchers at Western Australia's Murdoch University has found the hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years. Most dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7803373/Fossil...

At what point does carbon dating break down?

And how would you really know if it did or didn't?

[Kong_]

xxxooxxx wrote:

( thier claim is one of bias impartiality)

read: reality

[Cybele]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
"A study by ancient DNA researchers at Western Australia's Murdoch University has found the hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years. Most dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7803373/Fossil...

I know that. But there are claims of DNA found in some dinosaurs.

The Mighty T-Rex!

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/ns/technolo...

[Cybele]

How's that for contradiction, eh?

[xxxooxxx]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
read: reality

so in "reality" there is no empirical evidence carbon dating does not break down as a reliable measurement.

T/F...?

[Kong_]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I know that. But there are claims of DNA found in some dinosaurs.
The Mighty T-Rex!
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/ns/technolo...

http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/tpschweitzer-bo...

"Schweitzer [The lead researcher in your link] and her team also tested for the presence of DNA within the cellular structures, using an antibody that only binds to the “backbone” of DNA. The antibody reacted to small amounts of material within the “cells” of both the T. rex and the B. canadensis. To rule out the presence of microbes, they used an antibody that binds histone proteins, which bind tightly to the DNA of everything except microbes, and got another positive result. They then ran two other histochemical stains which fluoresce when they attach to DNA molecules. Those tests were also positive. These data strongly suggest that the DNA is original, but without sequence data, it is impossible to confirm that the DNA is dinosaurian."

Your Dino DNA claim hereby refuted.

So far.

[Kong_]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
so in "reality" there is no empirical evidence carbon dating does not break down as a reliable measurement.
T/F...?

Moving your goal posts much?

Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

"Dr. Wiens ... has published over twenty scientific research papers and has also published articles in Christian magazines. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other."

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

[Cybele]

Man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee:“the potato”!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46

The analyses done on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile.(New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19)

It's hard to believe, but each tree has unique DNA. Tree DNA is surprisingly similar to human DNA. It has the same basic building blocks. It has the same bases. They're arranged in the same way. The genetic code is the same in trees and in humans. There's a surprising similarity.
- Dr. Eleanor White

[Kong_]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
so in "reality" there is no empirical evidence carbon dating does not break down as a reliable measurement.
T/F...?

"Carbon Dating" is only good for organic remains of about 60,000 years of age.

Items OLDER than that are dated by one of the other FORTY OTHER radiometric dating methods.

Many of which over lap and confirm each other as to generalized dates.

[xxxooxxx]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Moving your goal posts much?
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
"Dr. Wiens ... has published over twenty scientific research papers and has also published articles in Christian magazines. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other."
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

still doesn't prove that carbon dating does not break down over a long period of time...

[xxxooxxx]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
"Carbon Dating" is only good for organic remains of about 60,000 years of age.
Items OLDER than that are dated by one of the other FORTY OTHER radiometric dating methods.
Many of which over lap and confirm each other as to generalized dates.

So why in the article that you linked, carbon dating was specifically mention as the dating method?

If it's reliable for dating only to the point of 60,000 years, why is it referenced for millions of years?