How Old is the Earth?

[D2bets 0]

6,000 years old

.... and heeeere comes Railbird surging ahead on the rail in the race for the nuttiest RX poster.

 

[random1323 0]

is it that hard to just say I don't know. there is no way of knowing. give on the impossible questions.

 

[schmeinz 0]

who cares? we will all be dead within 80 years anyways so why waste your time with something you cant prove

just like people who believe in god say they know theres a god well thats funny i dont know for certain i say there are two possibilities of their being a god:

yes or no

looks 50-50 to me and no evidence pointing either way has changed that so far.

 

[festeringZit 2,885]

I am afraid you are totally wrong here.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

I am just going to go on record to say that just because someone has a degree in 'x' doesn't mean this person is infalible, SPECIALLY when there is a very strong political-theological motivation.

Look for example these quotes



In other words, he said "there is no explanation for x", when shown a 'tiny bit' of literature on the subject and here we actually do have the fastest reader on the Universe as well........well 'thats not enough'

Then his OWN simulation showed it was possible BUT this is also forgotten.

Let me enlighten you:

We all bring our own presuppositions and biases to the table, I think if you
say that you do not, you are being disingenuous.

I'm glad you are able to dismiss Behe's work so easily. I am not.

 

[wolfie_cr 0]

Um. Wolf, he's not talking about ID, he's talking about whether or
not creationists accept theistic evolution or not.

got you, thanks for the clarification. I imagine following that train of thought noone can follow God's motivations/reasoning for doing something in one way or the other or truly tell the difference between both possibilities.

 

[festeringZit 2,885]

Festering, I respect your opinions and, although I largely disagree with you, I have a question. Is it possible that an intelligent designer (God) could create the universe (which is completely acceptable under evolutionist claims) and a process that delineates, yet continues to diversify, the species within it? In my opinion, it would be far more miraculous and powerful for God to create a self-sustaining process that allows such adaptational flexibility, as opposed to pulling the strings for the creation of each individual within each species. Your thoughts?

BTW,

I appreciate you being cordial and curbing the rhetoric. It makes for
a much more fruitful discussion IMHO.

 

[wolfie_cr 0]

who cares? we will all be dead within 80 years anyways so why waste your time with something you cant prove

just like people who believe in god say they know theres a god well thats funny i dont know for certain i say there are two possibilities of their being a god:

yes or no

looks 50-50 to me and no evidence pointing either way has changed that so far.

it matters a GREAT deal, if you become sick of a disease that could have been cured had certain aspects of evolution being understood ......I imagine that becomes suddenly important.

I imagine it also matters on the future of the US as a technologically advanced country whether or not something such as "we think its too complex and we will never know, you obviously can't explain 'x' now or well may be you can but we don't like it" ends up as an accepted 'theory' in science classes or not.

 

[wolfie_cr 0]

Let me enlighten you:

We all bring our own presuppositions and biases to the table, I think if you
say that you do not, you are being disingenuous.

I'm glad you are able to dismiss Behe's work so easily. I am not.

Thanks for bringing those photons over here.

We all bring our backgrounds/education/ideas/biases and political-theological motivations of course.

I am not an expert on these fields but after a few years of college in related areas I find quite a few things wrong with most of this debate.

If it would just me dismissing this guy's work its one thing, but it does help to read both types of books, you don't only read his books , do you? I mean, you have read his 'irreducibly complex' examples and you have also weighted the refutals of such, to have a sort of balanced view, right?

 

[festeringZit 2,885]

A theory makes predictions, intelligent design does not and further more to add insult to the injury pretends to make no claims about the 'creator' , its clear what the intention is and can be read in Wedge Document.

Of course that the theory of evolution also makes no claim to whether there is /or not a creator so in that regard they are neutral. The difference is that one claims there IS while the other one does not , theory of evolution is not a theological debate but a scientific one while the other one is a pathetic attempt to confuse the masses into a "LOOK! there IS another theory! a brand new one! that can be taught in science classes as 'equally valid' , there IS creator BUT we don't know anything about any such 'Creator'.......ok class over..see you at Church" LOL

About the conjecture I am glad we agree. The whole Bible is so there you go ope:

Wolf,

You show a certain amount of ignorance here. The whole Bible is not
conjecture at all. Even if you are an atheist, there still is a large
amount of history in the Bible:

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

 

[festeringZit 2,885]

Thanks for bringing those photons over here.

We all bring our backgrounds/education/ideas/biases and political-theological motivations of course.

I am not an expert on these fields but after a few years of college in related areas I find quite a few things wrong with most of this debate.

If it would just me dismissing this guy's work its one thing, but it does help to read both types of books, you don't only read his books , do you? I mean, you have read his 'irreducibly complex' examples and you have also weighted the refutals of such, to have a sort of balanced view, right?

Of course...

 

[wolfie_cr 0]

Wolf,

You show a certain amount of ignorance here. The whole Bible is not
conjecture at all. Even if you are an atheist, there still is a large
amount of history in the Bible:

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

Of course there is historic truth in there, but I was not the one that said that Moses (who wrote the Genesis) was not part of the Egyptian Royal Family (as described in the Bible) and therefore practiced the same religion as they did (I imagine that is 'the' part that in your view is a conjecture?) . That was my point and that was quite simply what I believe that Death Eats a Cracker was pointing at.

 

[wolfie_cr 0]

To insinuate that those who believe that we evolved from monkeys,
(who basically evolved from a blob of goo) have a higher IQ than
creationists I find extremely laughable.

Another interesting statement

"Behe accepts the common descent of species,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-19>[20]</SUP> including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe."

The posterchild of intelligent design saying that he believes in humans evolving from other primates. He got lucky in that statement......he is on both sides ROFL

 

[festeringZit 2,885]

Another interesting statement

"Behe accepts the common descent of species,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-19">[20]</sup> including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe."

The posterchild of intelligent design saying that he believes in humans evolving from other primates. He got lucky in that statement......he is on both sides ROFL

Behe comes more from a theistic evolution position.

 

[MrJ 0]

Einstein's beliefs about God are admittedly complex, but he clearly was
not an atheist as you say - though nor was he the typical theist, I'll
grant you that.

I just had to open this thread and see if anyone thought the world was only 6000 years old.

Anyway, you have a problem understanding the quotes you produced. He never states he believes in a god and denies that he flat-out believes that one doesn't exist, so the logical conclusion is that he is allowing for the possibility that one exists, but thinks it is unlikely. The only wise position to take on the matter given our current lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

[wolfie_cr 0]

Behe comes more from a theistic evolution position.

well, to use your own logic, this PhD in biochemistry believes that , yet YOU don't think there is a lot of evidence for that. Figure that.

 

[festeringZit 2,885]

I just had to open this thread and see if anyone thought the world was only 6000 years old.

Anyway, you have a problem understanding the quotes you produced. He never states he believes in a god and denies that he flat-out believes that one doesn't exist, so the logical conclusion is that he is allowing for the possibility that one exists, but thinks it is unlikely. The only wise position to take on the matter given our current lack of knowledge on the subject.

I don't have a problem at all understanding the quotes. That being said,
after researching more Einstein's comments late in his lifetime, I will
say that my original point about Einstein and IQ is a weak one, because
Einstein's personal position as a theist isn't nearly as strong IMHO
as some claim - and it looks like he changed his views somewhat,
later in life.

 

[919 2,215]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>“Documented” Transitional Forms?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right>Printer version | Email this article </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The cover of the March 1-7, 2008 issue of New Scientist pictures an illustrator’s attempt at drawing a half fish, half reptilian creature. Above the illustration is the title: “Amazing Missing Links: Creatures that Reveal the Real Power of Evolution.” Allegedly, evolutionists “have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils” (Prothero, 2008, 197[2645]:35). After his introductory comments, the author, Donald Prothero, listed several alleged transitional fossils, which supposedly “are conclusive proof that evolution has occurred, and is still occurring” (p. 41). Included in this list were a variety of animals—from velvet worms to dinosaurs, and giraffes to manatees. Readers, however, have to go no further than Prothero’s introduction to see the inaccuracy of his assertions.
Prothero introduced his list of transitional forms, that supposedly prove evolution, with two examples that science dealt a crushing blow to long ago. Prothero wrote: “Darwin’s 1859 prediction that transitional forms would be found was quickly confirmed. In 1861 the first specimen of Archaeopteryx—a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds—was discovered, and in the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented” (p. 35, emp. added). Of the alleged “numerous fossils and fossil sequences showing evolutionary change,” Prothero chose to begin his article with Archaeopteryx and the “sequence of horse fossils,” both of which are supposedly “documented” proof of evolution. In truth, Archaeopteryx and the horse family tree do not even come close to confirming evolution.

Regarding horse evolution, the fossil record simply does not bear out what New Scientist writer Prothero claimed. In fact, due to the severe lack of fossil evidence linking the various horse “family members” together, even prominent evolutionists have abandoned the “horse evolution” argument. Prothero claimed that as far back as “the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented” (p. 35). Since that time, however, evolutionists such as Dr. George Gaylord Simpson have admitted, “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature” (Simpson, 1953, p. 125, emp. added). In a 2000 article that appeared in the journal Natural History, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould criticized science textbooks’ use of misinformation surrounding the evolution of horses. He wrote:

Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed...) [2000, 109[2]:45, emp. added].​

In light of such statements by renowned evolutionists, one wonders how Prothero can be so confident that the evolution of horses was documented by fossils as far back as the 1870s. Is Prothero’s article just another example of how “misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent” in many evolutionary writings?
And what about Archaeopteryx? Is it a “confirmed” transitional form, as Prothero asserted? Simply because Archaeopteryx has teeth in its beak and claws on its wings, does not prove that it was the transitional form between reptiles and birds. Consider that some modern birds have claws on their wings, and yet no one thinks of them as being missing links. The African bird known as touraco has claws on its wings, as does the hoatzin of South America when it is young. Both of these birds use their fully functional claws to grasp branches and climb trees. If you have ever seen an ostrich close up, you might have noticed that it, too, has claws on each wing and can use them if attacked. Obviously, simply because a bird in the fossil record is discovered with claws on its wings does not mean that it is a transitional fossil.
In 1993, Science News reported that an odd fossil bird had been unearthed in Mongolia. It supposedly is millions of years younger than Archaeopteryx and, interestingly, had teeth in its beak (Monasterky, 1993, 143:245). As with the claws on the wings of Archaeopteryx, evolutionists cannot prove that the presence of teeth make the animal something more than a bird. What’s more, consider that while most reptiles have teeth, turtles do not. And, some fish and amphibians have teeth, while other fish and amphibians have no teeth. How can evolutionists be so sure that Archaeopteryx’s teeth make it a dinosaur-bird link? Such an assertion is based on unprovable assumptions.
Archaeopteryx also had fully formed feathers, just like living birds. Fossils of Archaeopteryx leave no hint of the animal being a half-scaly/half-feathered creature. It was not in some kind of in-between stage. Furthermore, “[e]xperts don’t know what Archaeopteryx’s closest [alleged—EL] dinosaur ancestor looked like—fossils haven’t yet been found” (“Fossil Evidence,” 2007), i.e., evolutionists have been entirely unsuccessful in finding any actual transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.
Finally, what makes the suggestion that Archaeopteryx was the missing link between reptiles and birds even more unbelievable is that “[a]nother bird fossil found in the desert of west Texas in 1983, Protoavis, is dated even earlier, 75 million years before Archaeopteryx” (DeYoung, 2000, p. 37, emp. added). Although some paleontologists have questions about the fossil remains of Protoavis (birds, after all, were not supposed to be around with the “earliest dinosaurs”), Dr. Chatterjee of Texas Tech University “has pointed out, the skull of Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle” (Harrub and Thompson, 2001). In 1991, Science magazine ran a story titled, “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” wherein Alan Anderson wrote: “His [Chaterjee’s—EL] reconstruction also shows a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs” (253:35).
The fact is, the fossil record does not, in any way, demonstrate that dinosaurs evolved into birds or that horses evolved from little dog-like creatures. Ironically, although Prothero, writing for New Scientist, wrote that a “favourite lie” of creationists is ‘there are no transitional fossils’” (2008, 197[2645]:35), evolutionist Mark Ridley wrote an article for the same journal 27 years earlier and confessed that “no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...” (1981, 90:832, emp. added).

REFERENCES​

Anderson, Alan (1991), “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” Science, 253:35, July 5.
DeYoung, Don (2000), Dinosaurs and Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
“Fossil Evidence” (2007), NOVA, [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html.
Gould, Stephen Jay (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious),” Natural History, 109[2]:42-50, March.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2001), “Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the ‘Dinosaurs-to-Birds’ Theory [Part 1],” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/473.
Monastersky, Richard (1993), “A Clawed Wonder Unearthed in Mongolia,” Science News, 143:245, April 17.
Prothero, Donald (2008), “What Missing Link?” New Scientist, 197[2645]:35-41, March 1-7.
Ridley, Mark (1981), “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, June 25, 90:832.
Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Apologetics Press :: Staff Members</TD><TD align=right></FONT< td></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=24>

</TD><TD vAlign=top>
Eric Lyons

Eric Lyons is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.S. with a double major in Bible and history, and an M.Min. Eric, his wife Jana, and their three children (Bo, Micah, and Shelby) live and worship in Wetumpka, Alabama, where Eric works with the youth of the Wetumpka church of Christ. He currently serves as a member of the Bible Department at Apologetics Press.
Eric has authored or co-authored a number of books, including The Anvil Rings: Answers to Alleged Bible Discrepancies (Volumes 1 & 2), Behold! The Lamb of God, and Truth Be Told. In addition, he writes weekly for the Apologetics Press Web site, is editor of the Explorer Series, and assistant editor of Discovery, the monthly magazine on Scripture and science for children published by Apologetics Press. Eric speaks frequently at youth rallies, Gospel meetings, and seminars around the country.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[timotinbowen 0]

BTW,

I appreciate you being cordial and curbing the rhetoric. It makes for
a much more fruitful discussion IMHO.

And I appreciate your attitude towards the subject as well. I try to remind myself that you are probably just as frustrated with my opinions as I often am with yours.