Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209323 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Gillette

Packwood, IA

#82590 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
3. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for
fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_1...

Creationist Claim CC361.1:

Oil and coal can form rapidly. Their formation is more a matter of heat and pressure than of time. Millions of years are not necessary to account for them.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 109-110.
Response:

Coal deposits show evidence of a history. Most coals are found in sedimentary rocks deposited in flood plains. They often contain stream channels, roots, and soil horizons. Long time may not be necessary to form the coal itself, but it is necessary to account for the context where coal is found.
Links:

MacRae, Andrew, 1994. Could coal deposits be explained by a global flood? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/co...
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#82591 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them.

It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers.

Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent.

Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another.

>>>>In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today.

This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82592 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And FFS they had the term. You simply don't like the term.
And yet you have failed to provide the word. You seem to be stuck on a toy that you think could have been used but wasn't.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time, what is the geometric name for the shape of a ball?
If they thought the word was spherical but could not say it they could have always said that the Earth was round like a ball.
They could have done a number of things, but because they did not do something how you wanted them to does not in any way mean anything you say it does. This is not third grade recess and your sub Nancy Drew level of logic does not fit reality.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny none of them state that and all verses apply better to a flat earth than to a spherical Earth.
This is only true if you approach the subject insisting the earth it flat. You see, if you take that away, then it easily become a sphere with the same terminology. In science, they call this confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is something you have went through great trouble to achieve these past couple days.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I have heard of Galileo retard. I was specifically asking which canon Urban based his attack on Galileo on.
Evidently you do not know much about Galileo, Urban VIII did not attack Galileo on the grounds of his heliocentrism but on grounds of personal attacks against the church in which Galileo made statements about the leadership of the church. As for Galileo's continuation of Copernicus' works, the church only said that the theory couldn't be proven or disproved and ordered him to not teach it as fact. Galileo continued to discuss it as theoretical mathematics until he insulted the leadership of the church and was forced into house arrest.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, we have a real Kool-Aid drinker here.Though the interaction between Galileo and the church was complex they did base their judgement against Galileo oh his works on helio-centrism.
So not only can you not keep your Bible straight you cannot keep your history straight either.
Is everything you believe to be true only supported in your head? I mean this is documented crap we are talking about here. There is no reason for you to pretend to know something then present it completely wrongly. Galileo had no problem with his heliocentric models outside the lack of scientific support for them until he made derogatory comments about the leadership of the church. That is like you claiming the world is round, cussing out a cop and then claiming your subsequent arrest was for the claim of the world being round. No, it was because of you cussing out the cop. But don't take my word for it, open a freaking history book that isn't a cliff notes version.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Would you accept a physics books with a disclaimer that said "Gravity is only a theory"?
I certainly would. Gravity is one of the most least understood products of nature. We have several theories on why and how it works but no clear answer outside of anecdotal Newtonian understandings.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you purposefully misread my post. I did include the disclaimer "near perfect". You obviously do consider it near perfect and therefore your whole last post is void.
You may not be a Bible thumper. But you are very dishonest.
Because you are a fool and I do not agree with the foolishness you spout does not make me dishonest. It makes you incorrect, ignorant, and searching for a way to save your fictitious worldview.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#82593 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
5. SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.h...

Creationist Claim CE310:

The sun is shrinking at such a rate that it would disappear completely in 100,000 years. This would make it impossibly large and hot in the distant past if the sun is millions of years old.

Response:

1. This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless.(In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.

2. There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.

Links:

Johansson, Sverker, 1998. The solar FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.htm...

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgoo...

Van Till, Howard J., 1986. The legend of the shrinking sun -- A case study comparing professional science and "creation science" in action. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 38(3): 164-174. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosm...
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#82594 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
7. EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
The information included here is from www.Jesus-is-Savior.com
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.h...

Creationist Claim CE011:

Earth's rotation is slowing down, so it cannot be more than a few million years old.

Response:

1. The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

2. The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

3. Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).

Links:

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? A close look at Dr. Hovind's list of young-earth arguments and other claims. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgoo...
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82595 Mar 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: Church trying to kill off science, say hello to Giordano Bruno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_bruno
Giordano Bruno (Italian pronunciation:[d&#658;or &#712;dano &#712;bruno]; 1548 – February 17, 1600),(Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus) born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in proposing that the Sun was essentially a star, and moreover, that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings.[2] After the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy, he was burned at the stake.[3]
GIllette again: Why would it be "heresy" to say the earth revolved around the sun? What Canon was negated (in the church's mind) by this astronomical opinion?
Read the entire story. All Bruno did was make Galileo recant his work as not yet provable, it wasn't until Galileo insulted the leadership of the church that he was trialed for heresy.

If you put your mind to it and read up on the subject, you might be able to understand the entire picture instead of the bits and pieces people have told you.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82596 Mar 24, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
I was being facetious about the absurdity of this whole argument. There is no god. Carry on.
well, you do not know that and there is no scientific way for you to prove it.

You can say there is no scientific evidence to support a god, but not there there is no god. You are suffering the same mental process believers have.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82597 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I have pointed out several times that if anyone is projecting it is you and now like a child you try to return that charge.
Poor fool. Trying to sound reasonable while being unreasonable does not work.
Why don't you tell me that the Hebrew did not have a word for ball, I mean sphere again.
Ball is not sphere. Nowhere in the bible is ball used for sphere. the term and concept as a shape did not exist and was not in use at the time the stories were created. You are simply wrong, wrong, wrong.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82598 Mar 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
And in my Post #561 on the previous page, I gave you BOTH the overview and the the detailed references that showed that the Jewish worldview at that time was of a flat disc earth with a dome over it.
You have yet to rebut this.
NO, I addressed it. I said wikipedia is not an authority and isn't a valid reference. the excerpts you list date to as early as 1953 in reference which is in line with my statement that the bible teaching a flat earth is a concept brought about recently by people attempting to find fault in it.

While some people might have considered the earth to be flat at some time, you can only abstract it from the bible if you read flat into it. The people of the time of the bible knew the world was not flat.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#82599 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Read the entire story. All Bruno did was make Galileo recant his work as not yet provable, it wasn't until Galileo insulted the leadership of the church that he was trialed for heresy.
If you put your mind to it and read up on the subject, you might be able to understand the entire picture instead of the bits and pieces people have told you.
READ the post.

Giordano Bruno is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE CASE from Galileo's. Bruno was the VICTIM of you Christians.

Your Church tortured and killed him for his astronomical ideas.
Mark

United States

#82600 Mar 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Nutjob nonsense.
Where is FossilBob when we need him? LOL
FossilBob is a professional geologist and teacher of geology at U of Indiana who recently retired. He has been spending much less time here on Topix, but his mission here on Topix was to expose and teach and embarrass YEC Christians who make silly claims like this.
Perhaps we can find him and direct him here.
Your inane "Biblical" nonsense won't play in conversation with a REAL geologist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformi...

See the contact zone and think about what the rocks are trying to tell you folks. This is all over the earth.
Mark

United States

#82601 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, sadly there are quite a few facts of life that you have been left out of.
I have no idea what you mean by the "Great Unconformity". I can tell you one thing, it is not a geological term.
I will be happy to deal with the facts of geology. I have seen your posts and never have I seen a worse case of "have no clue"itis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformi...

So because the pics are pretty good I used Wiki. All over the earth my friend. Every poster on this site needs to be honest with themselves and think about what this means. I do this because I care about every one of you. Now you have seen it, a sermon in the rocks.

M
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#82603 Mar 24, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformi...
So because the pics are pretty good I used Wiki. All over the earth my friend. Every poster on this site needs to be honest with themselves and think about what this means. I do this because I care about every one of you. Now you have seen it, a sermon in the rocks.
M
Err, explain to us exactly how this "unconformity" is somehow proof of a young earth and an accurate Genesis creation story?
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#82604 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>
While some people might have considered the earth to be flat at some time, you can only abstract it from the bible if you read flat into it. The people of the time of the bible knew the world was not flat.
It is historical fact that the people of the middle east at that time, including the people of Israel, conceived of the earth as a flat disc with a dome over it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Quote:
The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.[1] The Jewish conception of a flat earth is found in biblical and post biblical times.[2][3][4]
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#82605 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>
While some people might have considered the earth to be flat at some time, you can only abstract it from the bible if you read flat into it. The people of the time of the bible knew the world was not flat.
Incorrect. Since the Bible does not contain a specific astronomical lesson from your God, we BOTH are free to examine the textual evidence.

I've given 3 long, detailed posts which show how extensive the "flat earth" assumption of the Bible's writers was.

See the four posts here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

You've quoted Isaiah 40 a lot. A circle is not a sphere. A circle is drawn in two dimensions. In fact, the word "chug" also means elsewhere in the Bible the instrument known as a compass, which is used, of course. to draw a FLAT, TWO-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT, the circle.

You fail!
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>
. The people of the time of the bible knew the world was not flat.
Some people on the earth at that time did know it. Many educated Greeks did. Many sailors did.

But the uneducated, untraveled populace of the middle east, including Babylon and Israel believed in a flat disc with pillars covered by a disc with holes in it for the rain and with lights attached to it, etc.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82606 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>And yet you have failed to provide the word. You seem to be stuck on a toy that you think could have been used but wasn't.
I am not a student of ancient Hebrew. The existence of a ball and other spherical objects means that they did not need a name for the geometric name for a sphere to describe one.

Remember this was all in response to YOUR idiotic statement that the Hebrews did not have a word for sphere.
<quoted text>They could have done a number of things, but because they did not do something how you wanted them to does not in any way mean anything you say it does. This is not third grade recess and your sub Nancy Drew level of logic does not fit reality.
<quoted text>This is only true if you approach the subject insisting the earth it flat. You see, if you take that away, then it easily become a sphere with the same terminology. In science, they call this confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is something you have went through great trouble to achieve these past couple days.
Yes, they could have. I am not telling them what they had to do. The problem for you deniers of the fact is that not only do they use the word for flat, in context they imply a flat Earth.

So let me get this straight. Since we now know that the Earth is spherical, and even though the Hebrews used the word for a flat Earth and described a flat Earth we are supposed to believe that they really meant that the Earth was round simply because they did not have a word for sphere.

Does that sound reasonable to anyone?
<quoted text>Evidently you do not know much about Galileo, Urban VIII did not attack Galileo on the grounds of his heliocentrism but on grounds of personal attacks against the church in which Galileo made statements about the leadership of the church. As for Galileo's continuation of Copernicus' works, the church only said that the theory couldn't be proven or disproved and ordered him to not teach it as fact. Galileo continued to discuss it as theoretical mathematics until he insulted the leadership of the church and was forced into house arrest.
Oversimplified and incorrect. I know you love Wiki so:http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Galileo_affair

You are taking your script directly from a Catholic apologist site.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-co...

This time I think I will go with Wiki.

{QUOTE]
<snip of repeated garbage>

I certainly would. Gravity is one of the most least understood products of nature. We have several theories on why and how it works but no clear answer outside of anecdotal Newtonian understandings.
Actually we have better than Newtonian understandings right now.
[QUOTE]<quoted text>Because you are a fool and I do not agree with the foolishness you spout does not make me dishonest. It makes you incorrect, ignorant, and searching for a way to save your fictitious worldview.
No, your own arrogant idiocy is what makes you dishonest.

You made an exceptionally stupid statement. You probably don't know how idiotic it was. That was what started all of this.

In a pathetic attempt to defend your statement your other prejudices are becoming apparent.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82607 Mar 24, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformi...
So because the pics are pretty good I used Wiki. All over the earth my friend. Every poster on this site needs to be honest with themselves and think about what this means. I do this because I care about every one of you. Now you have seen it, a sermon in the rocks.
M
Okay so what do you want to know about the "great unconformity" It is not a term in common usage today, but it is still easy to explain.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82608 Mar 24, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformi...
See the contact zone and think about what the rocks are trying to tell you folks. This is all over the earth.
There are unconformities all over the Earth. They are not all of the same age.

What do you think they are trying to tell us?

If you mention a flood I might die laughing. That is one way that this site could get rid of me.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#82609 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Evidently you do not know much about Galileo, Urban VIII did not attack Galileo on the grounds of his heliocentrism but on grounds of personal attacks against the church in which Galileo made statements about the leadership of the church. As for Galileo's continuation of Copernicus' works, the church only said that the theory couldn't be proven or disproved and ordered him to not teach it as fact. Galileo continued to discuss it as theoretical mathematics until he insulted the leadership of the church and was forced into house arrest.
What a bald-faced LIAR you are! WHile he did insult some people including Urban, he was tried FOR HIS DIEAS and because they contradicted the then-established INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Controve...

Quote:

In September 1632, Galileo was ordered to come to Rome to stand trial. He finally arrived in February 1633 and was brought before inquisitor Vincenzo Maculani to be charged.

Throughout his trial Galileo steadfastly maintained that since 1616 he had faithfully kept his promise not to hold any of the condemned opinions, and initially he denied even defending them. However, he was eventually persuaded to admit that, contrary to his true intention, a reader of his Dialogue could well have obtained the impression that it was intended to be a defence of Copernicanism.

In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in the Dialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat.[58]

The sentence of the Inquisition was delivered on June 22. It was in three essential parts:

• Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[59]

• He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[60] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.

• His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[61]

End quote
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82610 Mar 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
It is historical fact that the people of the middle east at that time, including the people of Israel, conceived of the earth as a flat disc with a dome over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Quote:
The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.[1] The Jewish conception of a flat earth is found in biblical and post biblical times.[2][3][4]
It is not a fact, it is a fallacy perpetuated by ignorance. People long ago knew the earth was round or more to the point being discussed, people in the times of the bible knew the world to be round. You bringing up china and india and all that is pointless because we aren't discussing the entire history of earth, we are discussing the history of people influenced by the bible. I said there was some people, but those some are not the ones being discussed. Please stay on topic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Genesis Enigma 152,066
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Aura Mytha 20,177
America evolving into lockdown on purpose 2 hr One way or another 66
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Rose_NoHo 45,411
New law to further hatred towards police 9 hr One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner 10 hr One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Fri Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web