“just because man's understanding is too simplistic to grasp the power and methods of a creator God does not somehow change how God created the world.” What ‘methods’? No one here has even tried to explain how water ages rocks or makes them ‘look older’, nor the reasoning behind making it all just to ‘look older’. All it is now is a bald faced assertion devoid of any evidence. ...more

“just because man's understanding is too simplistic to grasp the power and methods of a creator God does not somehow change how God created the world.”

What ‘methods’? No one here has even tried to explain how water ages rocks or makes them ‘look older’, nor the reasoning behind making it all just to ‘look older’. All it is now is a bald faced assertion devoid of any evidence. Saying any such thing is true devoid of evidence one ought to ashamed.

Centuries before the theologians persecuted those who dare challenge that the earth does move & the geocentricism was wrong. Now it’s used to tell others that once again, science is wrong, & once again just have faith that the earth is really young.

“Some of the locals were just staring at it!”

Yeah, I bet. The yokels finally seeing technology. ‘look at dat der, da stairs em going up with magic!

“I do not understand all the concepts and physics behind nuclear power. However, I still accept it when I turn my lights on. “

If you were from some non developed country in the world without any influence of science and came to see a light turn on for the first time you might think it was the act of god(s) just like those in ancient Greece thought zeus controlled lightning.less

believer, Yes. Alan was never saying, nor has the argument for responsible cannabis use ever been, that DWI while on marijuana is a sound idea. To the contrary, it's a bad idea, just like taking too much prescription drugs can lead one to be in an accident. The argument was the direct affects, in that the death rate from direct use is nominal if not zero. In comparison 1,000's die annually ...more

believer,

Yes. Alan was never saying, nor has the argument for responsible cannabis use ever been, that DWI while on marijuana is a sound idea. To the contrary, it's a bad idea, just like taking too much prescription drugs can lead one to be in an accident.

The argument was the direct affects, in that the death rate from direct use is nominal if not zero. In comparison 1,000's die annually from alcohol poisoning( that is direct over consumption), & to that end, overdosing on other prescription drugs, inhaling of other things & other illegal drugs. The question thus is, if the inherit use of said cannabis is less likely to result in death, why would it be illegal?less

wow that sucks. Have fun. Hopefully someone responds to Baty's premise or puts up evidence that water makes rocks older like believer asserted.

As it now, in CA, to obtain a permit for distribute cannabis legally, as a Dr, is ~$100, & the recipient must also pay ~$250 for a permit card for purchasing.

I never originally stated anything about Dr.'s becoming licensed or paying 100 dollars to be come licensed for canabis distribution, Rev did. 3 hours ago.

Can you really not be bothered to post a direct reply so as to keep the thread organized? “I did give you an answer”. I guess, in a convoluted sort of way. A logically impossible, one that cannot be tested answer. “any answer that doesn't agree with yours is not considered an answer by you.“ I would take evidence that the earth is as young as you & others say it is. Or even a c...more

Can you really not be bothered to post a direct reply so as to keep the thread organized?

“I did give you an answer”.

I guess, in a convoluted sort of way. A logically impossible, one that cannot be tested answer.

“any answer that doesn't agree with yours is not considered an answer by you.“

I would take evidence that the earth is as young as you & others say it is. Or even a concerted effort to answer Baty’s premises, or if you want take a stab at believers assertion that water makes rocks ‘look older’. That would be a start…

“Just because you don't like the answer does not mean an answer was not given.”

Just b/c you imagine your god doing it doesn’t make it an answer.less

Baty, Your tenacity for asking creationists to finally answer your premises is a bit like my asking believer for evidence that water makes rocks look older. I’ve lost count how many time’s I’ve asked him, & yet, nothing.

'where is the information for paying $100 to become a doctor" Read AND Comprehend prophet. $100 for the already Dr to become licensed.

yes, and fittingly no david has come to answer his premises' Oh-boy.

“My dad was assigned a secretary. She would take dictation and write what he said. Who wrote the content?” Her. If the secretary example was anything like those who penned the bible, she would have given it to others to have it edited, translated, removed sections, added & enhanced sections & so on. We would hypothetically at least be able to consult with the secretary & your dad direct...more

“My dad was assigned a secretary. She would take dictation and write what he said. Who wrote the content?”

Her. If the secretary example was anything like those who penned the bible, she would have given it to others to have it edited, translated, removed sections, added & enhanced sections & so on.

We would hypothetically at least be able to consult with the secretary & your dad directly & on many occasions to determine if inconsistencies are apparent between intent. Not so with the bible or other holly books. All we ever had are ‘single personal secluded revelations’ (itself very questionable & dubious) which leads to religions sprouting up quite easily (Mormonism) in the wake of critical thinking.less

"a married bachelor or a square peg has nothing to do with creating something older than it is" Actually prophet, it does. It's known as a logical contradiction. 'married bachelors' & a 'round square' are by logical definition, impossible. That whole thing that I mentioned days ago known as the law of non-contradiction is a basic logic principle. You cannot both be prophet and non prophet any m...more

"a married bachelor or a square peg has nothing to do with creating something older than it is"

Actually prophet, it does. It's known as a logical contradiction. 'married bachelors' & a 'round square' are by logical definition, impossible. That whole thing that I mentioned days ago known as the law of non-contradiction is a basic logic principle. You cannot both be prophet and non prophet any more than 1 can be 5,000, they’re defined by their properties as distinct objects.

So is the concept of a god ‘making it older than it is’ is too a violation of this logical law, as either it really is old like science shows, or it isn’t. To say ‘god made it just look older’ is utterly untestable. Further there is no way you could distinguish if your proposed god made it look older, or some other cultures god did, or if it’s a big hi-jinx hoax put on by god’s nemesis satan.

“the only logical explanation for your denial is that youi don't believe God is big enough”

One can imagine a god(s) doing anything, so to argue over ‘who’s god or version of god can or cannot do what’ is utterly frivolous. It’s an argument like trying to say who can imagine a larger number. You might as well argue how many angels can fit on the head of a pin; you have no way of knowing or testing either way. It’s mindless nonsense made up as you go along…less

"since you don't believe in God, then to say that you believe what He says is misleading." Please try, for consistencies sake, stay on the same thread since it's related.... I never said I believed in your god, or what he was penned by humans to say.

"It seems rather delusional to think there exist definitions of "science" which are other than man-made." Like I said, shamelessly making it up as he goes along...

“could it be that God created the world to be 3 billion years old? “ Philosophically speaking, yes it’s possible, but the more accurate question is, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS THE CASE? Nope. Just like believers assertion that water makes rocks ‘look older’ there is zero evidence & it’s utterly an untestable & unfalsifiable hypothesis. “Afterall, He created Adam to be ...more

“could it be that God created the world to be 3 billion years old? “

Philosophically speaking, yes it’s possible, but the more accurate question is, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS THE CASE? Nope. Just like believers assertion that water makes rocks ‘look older’ there is zero evidence & it’s utterly an untestable & unfalsifiable hypothesis.

“Afterall, He created Adam to be an adult.“

I don’t believe this myth, but even assuming the premise true, so what? That a deity makes a human an adult doesn’t necessarily mean a deity makes the world also ‘look older that it is’. What possible reasoning could there be to want to make it just ‘look older’?

If god is all powerful, then making it as it is but yet the age creationists contend the universe is should be no problem, but we don’t find that at all. Again, unfalsifiable nonsense, but it’s your position to defend not mine.less

"His Word, or man's word? I choose God" & when men penned, edited, copied, translated, deleted, & enhanced sections of all other religious books, including yours, you're still left with 'man's word.'

"the term used in the Word of God is winged insects which walk on all fours and there are indeed insects who have more than four legs but who do walk on four legs only" It says they have only 4 legs, not that they 'walk on 4 legs only'.

believer, “I should have said with regards to the world being billions of years old that we have no historical records to validate the earth's age” Fail. Those decaying isotopes ARE a historical record in the same way that tree rings are a historical record for a tree’s growth and age which are very old that on one person saw go from a seedling to a mighty tree. “where on the othe...more

believer,

“I should have said with regards to the world being billions of years old that we have no historical records to validate the earth's age”

Fail. Those decaying isotopes ARE a historical record in the same way that tree rings are a historical record for a tree’s growth and age which are very old that on one person saw go from a seedling to a mighty tree.

“where on the other hand we certainly have a historical record affirming that our world's age is in the thousands as opposed to the billions.”

Nonsense. All we have in regards to the bible is some sand nomads a few thousand years ago authoring what THEY thought, inspired or not, of the nature of things. It certainly was written by a god, it was penned by men, edited by men, copied and translated by men.less

Believer, “science as you interpret it.” Well, there is no evidence that ‘water ages rocks’ (is there?) or that the 6 independent dating methods used to get the same age of the earth & moon are wrong (you still cannot provide any), so it’s not a matter of interpretation there. How old do you think it is again, & what evidence do you use to support this belief? “Testing and an...more

Believer,

“science as you interpret it.”

Well, there is no evidence that ‘water ages rocks’ (is there?) or that the 6 independent dating methods used to get the same age of the earth & moon are wrong (you still cannot provide any), so it’s not a matter of interpretation there. How old do you think it is again, & what evidence do you use to support this belief?

“Testing and analysis relying on manmade equipment that cannot be evaluated for accuracy in determining the age of the earth since’

Any evidence the tests, methodological analysis, or ‘man made equipment’ is flawed? The mere fact that is produces fruits in atomic power & atomic weapons suggests we know quite a lot about isotope decay rates.

“once again we can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt how old the earth is because we have no witnesses to validate it”

I already answered this nonsense ‘we weren’t there to directly see it age’ objection. As already mentioned science uses indirect and direct observations all the time. According to your logic, we can’t conclude anything beyond our own lifetimes as ‘we weren’t there to directly witness it’. Our courts don’t operate under any such nonsensical premise, we use DNA evidence to incarcerate criminals whom no one saw commit the crime all the time & its accurate & logical b/c we understand the science behind it.


through historical records which means we can only assume what a billions of year old earth would look like.

“I never made any such claim but was simply responding to you concern as to why the rocks appear to look billions of years old”

You call a response devoid of evidence of how water ages or makes rocks look older a response? Care to explain how that one works finally?


“if God is telling the truth in Genesis which He is”

Circular reasoning fail again. It’s correct b/c it says it is!

“then the only ones who even think they look billions of years old are those who don't believe God and His Word in these matters.”

No, it’s those who don’t take this part literally, just like most whom do not take the sections describing the earth as ‘fixed’ & ‘shalt not move’ implying it doesn’t move, when we know it does, & as describing the sun as encircling the earth, as opposed to the way science shows it as the earth goes around the sun.

“I have shared the names of scientists who believe in Creationism in the past”

OK, you be the first to show them stating the position of the earth is a mere few thousand years old is correct & what evidence they have which is testable to support their belief. I doubt any would suggest ‘water makes rocks look older’ as you’d say though.less

4Him “Oh, yes they were…” You’re on crack, all the fossils we have now are not frauds. Even AIG says so. “Dr. Arlton C. Murray “ Is quote mining all you have, really? This is from 1991 & from a guy who’s not published any science articles since. “Nature, Vol. 345, p. 395, 31 May 1990” Once again quote mining. Honey, we’ve found quite a few more fossils since ...more

4Him

“Oh, yes they were…”

You’re on crack, all the fossils we have now are not frauds. Even AIG says so.

“Dr. Arlton C. Murray “

Is quote mining all you have, really? This is from 1991 & from a guy who’s not published any science articles since.

“Nature, Vol. 345, p. 395, 31 May 1990”

Once again quote mining. Honey, we’ve found quite a few more fossils since 1990, way to stay current.

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



http://creation.com/loopholes-in-the-evolutionary-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-summary

Fail again. Evolution isn’t origins of life. Evolution is life diversified over time, it’s not how it originated. Abiogenesis is the science behind how the simplest replicators began.less

hi Hawk, “Meyers is a scientist as well as a philosopher of science” Then where are all his studies & articles proving ID? “You're right, evolution is not just chance, as the faithful also bring in necessity or a combination of both for evolution to "work"” Some processes of evolution are chance (mutations) others like selection (not chance) & other chemistry laws (again, not c...more

hi Hawk,

“Meyers is a scientist as well as a philosopher of science”

Then where are all his studies & articles proving ID?

“You're right, evolution is not just chance, as the faithful also bring in necessity or a combination of both for evolution to "work"”

Some processes of evolution are chance (mutations) others like selection (not chance) & other chemistry laws (again, not chance) move certain processes more into the necessity category. I don’t need ‘faith’ for something which has plenty of evidence. Supposing that some agent mystically creates whole animals out of no where though is at variance with evidence & would require a great deal of faith.

“There is not a natural law for creation of complex, specified information nor for designing items of specified complexity.”

Sure there are. Complex things like rainbow, hurricanes, & snowflakes occur in nature naturally & they consist of some very basic laws.

“Behe has demonstrated irreducible complexity quite adequately and has handsomely refuted the evolutionist complaints about his works.”

Right, that’s why in Dover Behe had to confess he wasn’t familiar with the volumes of evidence describing the evolution of the mammalian immune system. That loss of ID sure was some demonstration all right.

“You may not agree, but so be it.”

The scientific consensus is that ID isn’t science.

“You requiring that somebody has to be a 'qualified' scientist is arbitrary and elititist for disallowing proper conclusions to be reached by "non-scientists". “

Right, how ‘elitist’ of me for wanting actual scientists verifying the claims of others. How ‘elitist’ of me to suggest only qualified & trained scientists which adhere to methodological naturalism are practicing science as opposed to those who appeal to the supernatural to fill the temporal gaps of human knowledge.

“DNA and its related systems has all these features.”

And the far lesser complex RNA doesn’t?

Right, so like I said, you have zero evidence for the processes & mechanisms used for this supposed designer, so you’ve really not explained anything at all. Asserting an unknown supernatural to explain an unknown produces no new knowledge, it simply plays a shell game of replacing one unknown for another.less