MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Feb 19, 2004 17:35:10 GMT -5
no matter how gradually birds may heve evolved, at one point (a longer period of time if it was realy gradual) they (the birds) would have been a very very infirior (sp) speicies. they wouldn,t be able to fly, they wouldn't be able to climb or run very well, and they would have brittle breakable bones. No they wouldn't have. You didn't see my post responding to you, and now you're adding new things. Why wouldn't they be able to climb or run very fast? Plenty of birds can run quite fast and plenty of gliding animals are master climbers, and there's no need for the bones to be weak at all. Bats don't have hollow bones, and there's no evidence in the fossil record that the intermediaries between birds and reptiles were weak and helpless
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Feb 19, 2004 18:50:21 GMT -5
I would say that all evidence points towards my view of things. The evidence is the same, the figures do not change, and yet they are seen in two different lights. Why? at the basis of everything there must be an assumption, either an assumption that the earth is billions of years old, or that the earth is six thousand years old. From these assumptions it is possible (as evidenced) that an evolutionary theory, and a creationist assertion can be reached.
What our underlying assumption is makes all the difference.
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Feb 19, 2004 21:16:34 GMT -5
WEEALLL, I wouldn't completely agree. Obviously, I don't think the six day theory holds any scientific water at all, and I'm not sure it's just underlying assumptions. While I know that everything we learn and observe is colored by our presuppositions, the fact remains that viewed in the cold light of day the facts DO remain the facts, and we can't just argue the assumptions. We've got to examine the evidence, or we wont get anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by StephenColbert on Feb 19, 2004 21:34:45 GMT -5
what about the six day theory doesnt hold any water?
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Feb 19, 2004 22:26:12 GMT -5
The science part.
|
|
|
Post by StephenColbert on Feb 19, 2004 22:28:04 GMT -5
can you expand please?
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Feb 19, 2004 22:45:40 GMT -5
The six day theory completely disregards every reliable method of geological dating availible, all of which agree with each other, give or take a percent. The six day theory disregards geological formations, the fossil record, and biological evidence. There is, in fact, no scientific evidence in support of it the will bear close scrutiny, and I challenge you to bring up some. And POSITIVE evidence, mind you, not another critique of evolution.
|
|
|
Post by StephenColbert on Feb 19, 2004 23:02:10 GMT -5
can you expand more please? I still don't see exactly what you're saying. how does it disregard all that? you said it disregards it, but how? what does six days have to do with the age of the earth?
read genesis, tell me how the six day theory doesn't work
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Feb 19, 2004 23:29:56 GMT -5
If Matt wants to claim that six days disregards the "record" that is fine. I say it doesnt, we have the flood to account for that. Geological formations, again the flood. Biological evidence? (not sure about this, is this could this be the changes over time observed in the finches? if so I plead the flood again, jk.
If six days disregards science, which I dont believe it does, then I say that evolution ignores the Bible, of course Matt will be offended at this notion, so lets not go around accusing other in such point blank terms. I am all up for a huge slagging match, I think I can win that one, but lets keep it off this thread, agreed?
There is absolutely no evidence of God. There is no definative evidence of God that cannot be interpreted some other way. There is absolutely no evidence of evolution that cannot be explained by creation (although not necessarily by me)
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Mar 15, 2004 23:13:45 GMT -5
A quick aside (since no one seems to be posting) Jonathan Satafari (I believe he spells his name differently but this is how I am spelling it) is a one of the foremost creationist scientists, (also a Christian fiction author in the mold of the Hardy Boys, although I thought his writing was a little boring) is a former chess champion of New Zealand. He is so good that he can play several people at once, blindfolded, and win. It is an amazing mind that can do that, such are the wonders God has created.
|
|
|
Post by MarySchuhriemen on Mar 18, 2004 23:30:18 GMT -5
What Matt was saying....(and as I believe, too) is that a 40 day flood can't carve out the grand canyon. There are rock layers there that all of the scientific evidence shows to be many millions of years old. And how do you account for the glaciers? They SLOWLY carved stones into valleys and lakes.....they couldn't zip around the planet in the course of six days. (unless they had rocket engines strapped on the back, but then they'd melt ) and to revert to the dinos, there aren't any pictures from the ancient days of dinos roaming the earth....the cave men were pretty consistent with their drawings of horses and bison and those other animals....no dinos.....and no mention of them. All man found of their existence were their bones----turned into stone. Takes a long time for that to work as well. And then, peat and coal---that's old plants back in the millions of years ago days. They can't be compressed in so short a time...look at the forming coal and peat beds-they are no where close to being done, and they started thousands of years ago.
|
|
|
Post by ToriTelfer on Mar 19, 2004 0:37:42 GMT -5
*feels really unknowledgeable posting on this thread of science gurus* i know it seems like peat and glaciers and all that lovely jazz would take millions of year to *cough* evolve, but couldn't that be explained by the Flood? This wasn't a little puddle of water, this was a WORLD-WIDE CATASTROPHE that accomplished in what, 40 days? what it normally would have taken lifetimes to produce. i believe a 40 day, world-wide deluge of water from both heaven and the depths of the earth could quite easily carve out the Grand Canyon. and are the caveman pictures from before or after the flood? if they're from after, it stands to reason that there were no beautiful dinos pictures......huh? huh? yeah?
|
|
|
Post by JasonPensa on Mar 19, 2004 2:10:29 GMT -5
What Matt was saying....(and as I believe, too) is that a 40 day flood can't carve out the grand canyon. There are rock layers there that all of the scientific evidence shows to be many millions of years old. Ever heard of Mount St. Helens?? May 18th, 1980 forever changed what we "know" about catastrophes and how long it takes to form layers of sediment. The world wide 40 day flood described in Genesis was WAY more destructive, earth shattering and mind boggling then the 3 hours of Mount St. Helens erupting. --------------------------------------------- Visitors to Grand Canyon as well as eighth grade earth science students have been traditionally taught that the Colorado River, migrating back and forth for 65 million years, coupled with side canyon erosion, has carved out this immense gorge. In recent years, scientists have disproved that idea, leaning now on a great volume of water rushing through the area at a high velocity not very long ago which carved the canyon. (Unfortunately, school students are still being taught the older, long-age model.) Let me introduce you to Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. It measures 1500 feet long, up to 120 feet deep, and 120 feet wide, winding through a hillside. A small-scale analogy to Grand Canyon it was observed to form in less than six days. In 1904 the Gardena Farming District constructed a series of irrigation canals to provide water to this normally rather arid high desert area. In March, 1926, winds collected tumbleweeds at a concrete constriction along one of the canals situated on an elevated mesa, choking the flow of water, which at 80 cubic feet per second was unusually high due to spring rains. In order to clean out the obstruction, engineers diverted the flow into a diversion ditch leading to nearby Pine Creek. Prior to this time the ditch was rather small, at no location greater than 10-feet-deep and six-feet-wide, and often with no water in it at all. The abnormally high flow crowded into the ditch, and careened along until it cascaded down the mesa in an impressive waterfall. Suddenly, under this extreme pressure and velocity, the underlying stratum gave way and headward erosion began in earnest. What once was an insignificant ditch became a gully. The gully became a gulch. The gulch became a miniature Grand Canyon. The eroded strata consisted of rather soft sand and clay saturated by the recent rains. The dewatering of the saturated sediments into the now-open ditch enhanced the erosion. The rapidly moving water could both dislodge the particles and carry them down stream, leaving underlying sediments vulnerable to erosion. In total, these six days of runaway ditch erosion removed nearly five million cubic feet of silt, sand, and rock. Yes, canyons can form rapidly. A good maxim to remember is that, "It either takes a little water and a long time, or a lot of water and a short time." But then, we've never seen a canyon form slowly with just a little water. Whenever scientific observations are made, it's a lot of water and a short time. (The above comes from the following article: www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-156b.htm)This is also a great article I encourage you to go read: www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4305news5-17-2000.aspHis Servant, Jason
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Mar 19, 2004 13:27:13 GMT -5
Actually Jason, it didn't. I have the video too and it was one of the main sticking points for me before becoming a full-blooded evolutionist. I don't really have the time to answer you though, but I'll try one of these days. I just don't have the time to debate this right now.
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Mar 19, 2004 13:44:56 GMT -5
The problem with appealing to the flood though is that if such an event happened there would be dinosaurs of all types and time periods intermingled with modern animals EVERYwhere and in all strata. They just aren't. At all. If the flood had caused all this, there should be hundreds of instances of human bones jumbled with dinosaurs and other pre-human species. The indisputable fact is, however, that not one instance of this has ever been found.
|
|