Do you believe in evolution?

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
So if evil exists outside of creation and before God created anything there was just God wouldn't that make evil apart of God?
Trying to explain why God would do anything seem pointless to me so I don't think it serves any purpose to attempt to understand God's desire for love by comparing it to a human's desire for love.
we tried to explain this in a number of posts already

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
we tried to explain this in a number of posts already
You tried to explain your thought process, however other people have answered slightly differently than you did and I am attemtping to get them to look logically though their entire throught process.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
then i would also incourage you to seek more knowledge in the bible
While I agree that I could probably learn more about the bibile, I have spent a disproptionate amount of time studying it, (around 20 years) compared to the very limited time I have devoted to other areas. So while I do hope and intend to continue my understanding of the bible I do feel that I have missed quite a bit in other areas that I would like to catch up on before focusing merely on the bible.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Do you want more? I can give you more...
Would I would like is for you to provide the evidence that you have repeatedly claimed to have but have failed to present.
You have claimed to have evidence that entire species that have fossil evidence are falsehoods yet when you supply your 'evidence' it is merely a debate about the significance of one finding.
You claimed that Darwin's motive was to find an alternative to God, however when asked for evidence of that you merely showed a quote that showed the man's personal struggle to connect his beliefs with his observations.
What I want is for you to back up your claims or to adjust your claims to reflect what information you truely have.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Alright, I think some of these topics have become exhausted... not because there is nothing more to say about them, but the type of rebuttal is getting monotonous. LOL
Here's something else for you all to think about...
1. Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This "results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald B. DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless of course it was designed that way from the beginning.
3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it does seem a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.
Do you want more? I can give you more...
We don't need more, these are too easy to rebut. The earth-moon age problem has been argued to death in many forums. Essentially, the answer is that DeYoung did the wrong problem, and actually calculated a minimum possible age, not a maximum. That is because he ignored the data that indicate a lower energy dissipation rate in the past. As for the sun diameter argument - there is no reliable evidence that the sun has shrunk at all, much less the amount claimed in creationist arguments. This is a perfect example of "say it enough times, and someone is bound to believe it" that is the usual creationist fare.
I teach a course that has a large evolution component, so keep serving em up, and I'll keep hitting them out of the park for ya.

 

[clown boy]

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field:
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on the earth. 23,24,25,26 In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is, in fact, quite young, suggesting that the earth itself is young also.
The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphreys work suggests. A brief portion of Dr. Humphreys findings are quoted below.
"Shortly after that I published a review of the evidence for past polarity reversals, reaffirming their reality (Humphreys, 1988). Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid (meters per second) motions of the core fluid would indeed cause rapid reversals of the field’s polarity (Humphreys, 1990). I cited newly discovered evidence for rapid reversals (Coe and Prévot, 1989), evidence in thin lava flows confirming my 1986 prediction. Since then, even more such evidence has become known (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995).
The reversal mechanism of my theory would dissipate magnetic energy, not sustain it or add to it, so each reversal cycle would have a lower peak than the previous one. In the same paper (Humphreys, 1990, p. 137), I discussed the non-dipole part of the field today, pointing out that the slow (millimeter per second) motions of the fluid today could increase the intensity of some of the non-dipole parts of the field. However, I concluded by saying the total energy of the field would still decrease.
Despite these creationist answers, skeptics today still use Dalrymple’s old arguments to dismiss geomagnetic evidence. Much of that is probably due to ignorance of our responses, but some skeptics are still relying on the non-dipole part of the field. They hope that an energy gain in the non-dipole part will compensate for the energy lost from the dipole part.
I said, “hope,” because it appears that since 1967, nobody has yet published a calculation of non-dipole energies based on newer and better data. So that is what I will do below. It turns out that the results quash evolutionist hopes and support creationist models." 27 Emphasis Added
Another major problem with old-earth beliefs in this regard is the timing of the earth's last reversal. Old earth believers claim that it took place 780,000 years ago; however, at current rates of decay, only about 10,000 years ago the earth would have been so hot that no life could have survived on its surface. And even if we assume that in the past the earth's magnetic field decayed much slower than today, then we are still only looking at about 20,000 years ago that life could have existed on the earth. This means that the old-earth dates for the earth's past magnetic reversals (arrived at using radiometric method) are probably incorrect. This is due to the fact that radiometric methods all require at least three assumptions, and often many more.

 

[jerthunter]

Clown Boy, once again your latest cut and paste attempt has merely provided old arguements based on a gross conceptual error and has yet to support any of the previous claims you have made.
I am far from an expert on magnetic field but I do understand that its decay is non-linear and attempts to explain it linearily will always end up with bad results.

 

[clown boy]

13. Niagara Falls:
Up until the recent past, when the top of Niagara Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward Lake Erie at the rate of about four to five feet per year. Since the cannel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet), this means that the age of Niagara Falls is between 7,000 and 8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant. The age of North America, is likely the same.

 

[reefreak29]

you cant prove anything to anyone that doesnt want to see the truth if you tell someone the sky is blue and he believes its red then good luck trying to convince him otherwise

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
13. Niagara Falls:
Up until the recent past, when the top of Niagara Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward Lake Erie at the rate of about four to five feet per year. Since the cannel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet), this means that the age of Niagara Falls is between 7,000 and 8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant. The age of North America, is likely the same.
If Niagara Falls was 7000-8750 years old wouldn't it have been damanged by the flood?

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
If Niagara Falls was 7000-8750 years old wouldn't it have been damanged by the flood?
how can you damage water with water that makes no sense

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
you cant prove anything to anyone that doesnt want to see the truth if you tell someone the sky is blue and he believes its red then good luck trying to convince him otherwise
That is very true, and I mentioned that same fact back when someone mentioned the felon Kent Hovird's offer of $250,000 to anyone who could prove evolution.
I personally would like to think I am open to any information but I feel the information provided should back up the claims being made.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
how can you damage water with water that makes no sense
I was not speaking of the flood damaging the water of the falls but water falling in mass quantities does have to tendency to damage rock beneath the water.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field:
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on the earth. 23,24,25,26 In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is, in fact, quite young, suggesting that the earth itself is young also.
The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphreys work suggests. A brief portion of Dr. Humphreys findings are quoted below.
"Shortly after that I published a review of the evidence for past polarity reversals, reaffirming their reality (Humphreys, 1988). Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid (meters per second) motions of the core fluid would indeed cause rapid reversals of the field’s polarity (Humphreys, 1990). I cited newly discovered evidence for rapid reversals (Coe and Prévot, 1989), evidence in thin lava flows confirming my 1986 prediction. Since then, even more such evidence has become known (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995).
The reversal mechanism of my theory would dissipate magnetic energy, not sustain it or add to it, so each reversal cycle would have a lower peak than the previous one. In the same paper (Humphreys, 1990, p. 137), I discussed the non-dipole part of the field today, pointing out that the slow (millimeter per second) motions of the fluid today could increase the intensity of some of the non-dipole parts of the field. However, I concluded by saying the total energy of the field would still decrease.
Despite these creationist answers, skeptics today still use Dalrymple’s old arguments to dismiss geomagnetic evidence. Much of that is probably due to ignorance of our responses, but some skeptics are still relying on the non-dipole part of the field. They hope that an energy gain in the non-dipole part will compensate for the energy lost from the dipole part.
I said, “hope,” because it appears that since 1967, nobody has yet published a calculation of non-dipole energies based on newer and better data. So that is what I will do below. It turns out that the results quash evolutionist hopes and support creationist models." 27 Emphasis Added
Another major problem with old-earth beliefs in this regard is the timing of the earth's last reversal. Old earth believers claim that it took place 780,000 years ago; however, at current rates of decay, only about 10,000 years ago the earth would have been so hot that no life could have survived on its surface. And even if we assume that in the past the earth's magnetic field decayed much slower than today, then we are still only looking at about 20,000 years ago that life could have existed on the earth. This means that the old-earth dates for the earth's past magnetic reversals (arrived at using radiometric method) are probably incorrect. This is due to the fact that radiometric methods all require at least three assumptions, and often many more.
Wow! You are making it tough on me. Now I have to review my physics, and lo and behold, what do I find? The fundamental assumptions are wrong, so everything that flows from them will be incorrect. The change in the earth's magnetic field do not change exponentially, but linearly. The initial reports used by creationists made that assumption, and Humphrey's (who is an unabashed creationist) used the exponential assumption uncritically. We could spend hundreds of pages dissection all of the other errors in these arguments, but..."garbage in, garbage out" sums it up.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
13. Niagara Falls:
Up until the recent past, when the top of Niagara Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward Lake Erie at the rate of about four to five feet per year. Since the cannel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet), this means that the age of Niagara Falls is between 7,000 and 8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant. The age of North America, is likely the same.
The age of Niagara Falls is not the age of the earth. Geologists estimate that Niagara Falls originated about 7,000 years ago, sometime after the end of the last glacial episode. This says nothing about how old the rest of the earth is, though. BTW, these are the same geologists who claim the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years.

 

[jerthunter]

I think is misspoke earlier, linear vs. exponentially or vice versa. But what it does come down to is your intial assumptions need to be correct.
I apologize if my inaccurate wording lead to any confusion.

 

[clown boy]

15. The San Andreas Fault:
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America. It runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco. It is said to move from 1/2 to 2 inches per year. 85 How long has it been moving for? The answer varies greatly. Some say it has moved for tens of miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.86 There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved 12,000 feet;87 however this too is questionable since the origin of granite itself is uncertain. Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up out of the ground.
One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the Pt. Reyes area, one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all. This evidence suggests that this fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
15. The San Andreas Fault:
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America. It runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco. It is said to move from 1/2 to 2 inches per year. 85 How long has it been moving for? The answer varies greatly. Some say it has moved for tens of miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.86 There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved 12,000 feet;87 however this too is questionable since the origin of granite itself is uncertain. Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up out of the ground.
One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the Pt. Reyes area, one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all. This evidence suggests that this fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old.
And the point of this is...

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
And the point of this is...
It would appear his point is to keep cutting and pasting useless information in the hopes it will distract from the fact that he has yet to supply one bit of evidence he said he had.

 

[clown boy]

LOL it seems a part of that article was left out.. sorry, folks...