[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad
As far as the standard Creationist explanation for why we can see stars billions of light years away even though the universe is supposedly only 6 – 10 thousand years old, it’s the same as other explanations: God create the Universe “mature”.

Which was exactly the trap I was setting for him.

[Uncle Martin]

Well Hell,

I thought we were just messing with CD's head.

Telemad, it seems I alone was messing with CD's little mind. I hope this is all cleared up now.

FT, your integrity is to be commended. You didn't have to come clean, yet you did. I know few people that would do that.

Here's a link that I find very informative:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/5000lys.html

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad
Young-Earth Creationism vs. Science
2) Why have astronomers detected millions of quasars?

3) Why is there a 2.73 kelvin cosmic microwave background radiation?

First, why did God put any microwave background radiation in space, in agreement with the BB theory? It seems to serve no purpose, except to help confirm the Big Bang theory.

Second, why did God distribute the CMBR evenly throughout space, in agreement with the BB theory?

Third, why did God make the CMBR such that it would be about 3 kelvin when measured, in agreement with the BB theory?

Why did God plant the CMBR evidence in such a manner – with three different properties that all point to the universe being over 10 billion years old - as to deceive scientists?

Fine SCIENTIFIC questions. There is no doubt that anyone wishinv go use REASON in their personal philosophy would recognize how well supported an old universe theory is. But once they are pushed to that point. Once they are forced to admit that the facts do not support their personal delusions, they revert to their good ole days "Faith".

2 Thessolonians 2:11-12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Their god is just waiting for the chance to punish us! What greater thrill for this vendictive monster god than to watch someone he intentionally caused to be misled, to be tortured beyond imagination for eternity. Just for trying to understand the very things this god put in place.

But this is a good thing remember!

These are just a few examples. In Young-Earth Creationism, over and over God plants misleading information, fooling scientists into believing that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old. Young-Earth Creationists turns their own God into the ultimate deceiver.

But only because he LOVES us! And loves lying to us and torturing us for believing it.

That is why I stay away from that approach.

You assume Christians will use the same logical approach you might.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin
FT, your integrity is to be commended. You didn't have to come clean, yet you did. I know few people that would do that.

Thanks. But I don't think it should be a big thing. The reason you find it unusual is religious mindsets don't allow for one to admit error. That perfect knowledge thing again. And even if a Christian will finally be pushed into admitting they could be wrong about their whole god thing, they will still claim they beleive it to be true even though they do not have the fist single shred of valid reason to. How honest is that?

Where I am not locked into ANY stance. I merely accept for convenience at the time what ever is supported by the most factual information. As new info comes along, I have no baggage to get rid of before I can just move on.

Thus when I make a mistake or have wrong info, I am always pleased to be corrected. Then I won;t make the same mistake again, intentionally anyway.

Here's a link that I find very informative:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/5000lys.html

Thanks for that. I had originally done a search which is where I came up with the wrong star count. I found a chart and I thought it was labled in thousands of light years not just light years. So 6 became 6,000 in my mind.

But as I posted elsewhere, the comparison is still valid. Based on the % of visible stars, we would only see a fraction of the Milkyway and no other galaxies.

But we have heard about the creation concept of a fully functional universe at creation and the scientific reasons why it could only mean intentional lies. As if that would stop a Christian.

[oblivion]

This thread = over done.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: oblivion
This thread = over done.

Please feel free to take it in the direction you feel is appropriate. A fresh point of view is always welcome.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Lord Henry Wotton

What's wrong with silliness?
I believe in a creator, creation however, that is difficult to accept (very).

Aha! So the validity of a subject is dependent upon YOUR ability to understand or accept it, right?

Do YOU understand rocket science? Do you know the equations that relate fuel burnage to acceleration and final velocity and can you use them intelligently? No? Then obviously rocket science is "junk science".

Do YOU understand the molecular structure of antibiotics, and how they kill invasive microbes in the body without damaging the body's own cells? Can you understand the manufacturing process of creating an antibiotic? No? Then obviously modern medicine is "junk science".

What DO you know? What are you an expert on? Medieval Literature? Then is everything else in the totality of Human Knowledge and Experience just "junk" because YOU don't fully understand it?

Perhaps you can't accept evolution as a successfull explanation of the biological realm around us because you are ignorant of it. Lose your ignorance then come back and comment on any insights you may have.

[jetzeppelin]

Originally Posted by syndicated

Tormod, I must say that Im suprised that you're letting this guy's opinion get to you like this. I realize ignorance is no excuse for attempting to force one's beliefs on others, but I think you proved your point.

At any rate, I wholeheartedly agree with the evolution theory, or theorem as it may be. The fact that there may be no fossils, or a "missing link" proves nothing, nor does it vaguely support the creationist theory. Perhaps these things have just not been given enough time to be found yet?
Perfusionista, you talk about how in 25 years, man has not been able to create anything in the way that life was orginally created. Don't you think that 25 years is a VERY short period of time to be jumping to such conclusions? 21st century technologies might be incredible, but they are FAR from perfect. In addition to that, I think that one must consider the moral/ethical consequences before "playing God" and just jumping into something and creating life or modifying life as we know it. Think of the effects that may happen should some scientist start fooling around with genes, DNA and chemicals and create something which may turn into Godzilla or some damn thing. Thats just not responsible reasearch. One must be careful in dealing with such things!!
As for this whole mutation discussion, I believe that you're really confining your defintition of "mutation" into meaning a purely bad thing. If you look at the evolution of man in the past say 50,000 years, our skull shape has changed considerably, we grow much less hair than our ancestors, and our intelectual capacity has grown exponentially. I believe the definition of mutation is more like "change" or a "differentiation" from the standard, and the fact of the matter is, evolution is a VERY, VERY slow action - or mutation if you will. Human beings, like all life on this planet, adapt to it's surroundings to take advantage of whatever it can to propagate the species.
Lets look at the Dinosaurs for example. When that asteroid hit the earth, our planet was predominatly inhabited by reptiles, cold blooded reptiles. It is said that this asteroid created a nuclear winter so to speak. Cold-blooded beings do not do well in subzero temperatures right? Whereas mammals can survive easily given the right circumstances and resources. One can only assume that the smalller reptiles were able to migrate to warmer places where they evolved to adapt to their new surroundings. The dinosaurs died, thus ending that era of life of Earth.

Like Tormod said, the Earth has been around for 4.6 billion years. That is a LONG time for life to evolve, adapt, die or survive. Don't get me wrong here, I like to believe in a higher power, but as of right now, there may be evidence to substantiate the creationist theory, however there is NO PROOF. Evidence and proof are two VERY different things. As of right now, there is far too much evidence in favour of evolution to take a creationist theory serious.
I hate to bash someone else's opinion, especially if I can't prove them wrong. However, I really don't like the way you presented yours Perusionista. However, I am - as always - open to any arguement you may have against mine.


Thanks,
Ben

It's not just one missing link.

We have fossils that are 100% bird, 100% reptile, 100% amphibian, 100% fish.

But where lies the millions (that is a conservative number) of fossils of the prerunners to the species? We have never discovered a cold-blooded bird, or a warm blooded reptile, nor much fossil evidence of either. ( I will say that paleontologists speculate that dinosaurs such dimetridons [that spelled correct?] were warm blooded. Even if they were warm blooded, the dimetridons supposedly went extinct millions of years before the appearance of mammals, and an evolutionary link between shrews and large warm blooded dinosaurs such as the dimetridon is quite ridiculous). Where are the intermediates? Where are the half birds (archaepteryx was a bird, examine also the quezacoatl of S. America, which is a bird that incredibly similar to the extinct archaepteryx). and half mammals? Evolutionary data (and statistics) imply that fossils of intermediates would be easily found, but none have.

Also 4.6 billion years is a short amount of time for evolution. (I would recommend some of the later research of Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the original proponents of the Big Bang theory for more statistics) . Stephen Jay Gould affirmed that it would take 60,000,000,000 advantageous mutations over 4.6 billion years for man to be in the state he is today. That is an average of around 40 advantageous mutations occurring daily over the period of 4 and a half billion years. Research on the genetic level shows mutations to be almost always more harmful than not.

I am not here to bash evolution ( I hope it doesn't seem that is my purpose), so I will expect no ad hominem, and I hope I will find none =). I'm here to learn from others, and to teach them also.

[ughaibu]

Is there any chance of reducing the number of threads disputing evolution?

[Tormod]

It would certainly help if people didn't jumpstart threads that are almost two years old. Closing this one.