Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

PromiseLander -> Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 8:27:22 AM)

OK, if you've got time (about 30 mins. per show) listen to Dr. D. James Kennedy give some sermons on the evolution / creation debate. Grab a pencil and paper, this is gooooood stuff!

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Truths_That_Transform/archives.asp?bcd=4/7/2008

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Truths_That_Transform/archives.asp?bcd=4/8/2008

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Truths_That_Transform/archives.asp?bcd=2008-4-9

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Truths_That_Transform/archives.asp?bcd=2008-4-10

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Truths_That_Transform/archives.asp?bcd=2008-4-11



PromiseLander -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 8:47:22 AM)

Well, he's got logical and Theological proofs too, so I suppose he covers all bases...



drj11 -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 11:07:00 AM)

You are being lied to. Honestly, pick up a book on evolution, or cosmology or some science if this stuff interests you. Because guys like this are straight up feeding you total BS



PromiseLander -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 11:41:40 AM)

Drj11:
Really? I've been brought up in school to learn that evolutionists are the ones lying to us... I'm assuming you listened to the sermons then; what part of this was not factual? Was it that Dr. Fred Hoyle listed the statistics for the complexities of the smallest components of life coming together by pure chance was statistically impossible? Was it the lack of distribution of nickel on the sea bed? Was it the lack of lunar dust? Was it the existence of a "dust cloud" encountered by a satelite that should have been cleaned up by the sun? Was it the inconsistencies of the various dating methods? Was it the use of various "earth clocks" to determine the age of the earth, 99% of which point to a young earth?

Please, tell me what in his sermons are non factual - I'm not a scientist, so I have to take the word of intelligent people to give me scientific explainations of such events.



PromiseLander -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 11:42:58 AM)

"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this"

Gitt, W. 1997. In the Beginning was Information, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V. Bielfeld.



PromiseLander -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 11:45:02 AM)

Here's an interesting article, though not quoted from Dr. Kennedy...


Information theory and Physics do not admit evolution as science
http://www.nmsr.org/csfnm5a.htm



essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 12:16:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

what part of this was not factual? ... Was it the lack of lunar dust?

Please, tell me what in his sermons are non factual - I'm not a scientist, so I have to take the word of intelligent people to give me scientific explainations of such events.


I didn't listen to the sermons, so I'm not sure what all of those things were, but the lunar dust is an oldie but a goodie of creationism. It's as wrong now as it was then.



PromiseLander -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 12:42:18 PM)

Essentialsaltes:
Well, if you're going to rebut, I wish you would give more than a "that's not true." That kindof has a ring of "I know you are but what am I?"

How DO you explain the 2 inches of lunar dust, where if the moon is as old as they thought it was at that time, there should have been 54 feet. Actually, on an interview, Armstrong said that his greatest fear about landing on the moon was sinking out of sight into the lunar dust - they were that adamant in their belief about this that they put large pads on the landing craft to help spread the weight of the machine so as not to sink into the dust.

And, if this is somehow explainable by evolutionary scientists, how do you explain the statistical impossibility of evolutionary ideas as explained by Dr. Fred Hoyle? What about the various earth clocks that are used to determine the age of the earth, 99% of which point to a young earth?

I wish you would listen to at least one of his sermons. I'm not asking you to believe it because likely you won't, I'm just asking you to look at the point of view in light of the facts that he states. I've not listed all that he said; these are merely the ones that I remember, maybe you will find some evidence in his sermon that you've never heard before?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 1:07:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

Essentialsaltes:
Well, if you're going to rebut, I wish you would give more than a "that's not true." That kindof has a ring of "I know you are but what am I?"


Sorry, my post has a link in it to another site. Give it a click and read. A link off that page goes to Answers in Genesis, which states:

"In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former Institute for Creation Research graduate student Dave Rush, have examined in minute detail all the evidence relating to this argument.1 They have shown that:

The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount ... on which the argument is usually based.

Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.

Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there."

quote:

And, if this is somehow explainable by evolutionary scientists, how do you explain the statistical impossibility of evolutionary ideas as explained by Dr. Fred Hoyle?


Hoyle was a fine mathematician and astronomer, but his arguments about evolution only suggest that evolution is 'unlikely', not impossible. If, as current cosmology indicates, the universe is infinite, then no matter how unlikely something is, it'll happen somewhere.

quote:

What about the various earth clocks that are used to determine the age of the earth, 99% of which point to a young earth?


This, I'm afraid, is quite inaccurate. Some info here. Our best methods involve radiometric dating, which have measured consistent 4.5 billion-year ages for the earth, moon and solar system. Many of the other 'clocks' that creationists commonly use have enormous faults. Salinity of the ocean arguments rely on the assumption that salt does not precipitate out or otherwise get removed from ocean water. Even so, Joly used this method and measured the age of the earth at 100 million years.

Lord Kelvin's measurement based on the cooling of the earth gave an age in the millions of years (He didn't know about radioactivity, which 'artificially' keeps the earth warm, so his estimate is shorter than the actual age of the earth.

Charles Lyell looked at fossils and came up with an age of 240 million years.

Modern cosmology gives the universe an age in the billions of years.

That's five scientific methods that give an age in at least the millions of years. There need to be 495 methods that give a young age, for Kennedy's statement to be true.



DanJames -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 1:18:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

You are being lied to... feeding you total BS


Behold, the eulogy of a man who dared oppose evolution or limit its spread.



PromiseLander -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 2:06:41 PM)

Well, regardless of what you may believe, I do wish that you would listen to one of those lectures. After all, what can it hurt?



drj11 -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 3:00:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

Well, regardless of what you may believe, I do wish that you would listen to one of those lectures. After all, what can it hurt?


I probably will, but I can already see its filled with misinformation in the video descriptions. I don't have time to listen at the moment though, but its always fascinating to peer inside someone's head who's so disconnected with reality. I can tell you I have probably heard his arguments a thousand times before, and it will be the same old stuff thats been reputed many times over judging by the descriptions. But I'll give it a listen, later. With the first sentence even: "Evolution is directly responsible for about 200 million deaths in the twentieth century alone!". This is so ridiculously preposterous, if there is a God, Kennedy should have gotten hit with about a billion lightning bolts for saying such things.



WesP -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 3:15:17 PM)

quote:

its always fascinating to peer inside someone's head who's so disconnected with reality.


Likewise, I am sure! [8D]

Sorry...

Why ya gots to be rude, dude? [sm=error.gif]



PromiseLander -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 3:33:11 PM)

DRJ11:
I really don't want to come across as rude, but you did infer your atheism in your response to me.

Can I ask you a couple of questions in all honesty and with no malice intended?

An atheist says: "There is no God." But to say this one would require all knowledge of everything there is to know in the universe. If I were to say: "There is no Gold in China" then I would need to have intimate knowledge of everything about China, I'd need all knowledge of geological evidence, dental records of the people there, ect... But if I were to say "There is Gold in China" I would only have to know of a single source of gold in the place - very limited knowledge of the place. Likewise, if it is safe to assume that there are some things in this life that you just do not know, and if I were to say for the purpose of our discussion that you know an astonishing 10% of everything there is to know in this universe, do you think that it would be safe to assume that in the 90% of knowledge that you have not yet come across that there is ample evidence for the existence of God?

It is then necessary to realize that the atheist, as defined by his statement: "there is no God," does not exist. Rather, the person must say: "In the limited knowledge that I now possess, I have not yet discovered God."

I realize that you may choose not to believe in God, and that is entirely your business, but I do ask that you to not treat Him with such ridicule, for I feel that you jest with something that is extremely Holy.



1love1God1way -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 5:50:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

You are being lied to. Honestly, pick up a book on evolution, or cosmology or some science if this stuff interests you. Because guys like this are straight up feeding you total BS


LOL.

I don't have much else to say, other than I giggled quite a bit reading this.

You might as well have just said "Nuh-uh!"



iluvatar -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 10:19:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

Essentialsaltes:
Well, if you're going to rebut, I wish you would give more than a "that's not true." That kindof has a ring of "I know you are but what am I?"

How DO you explain the 2 inches of lunar dust, where if the moon is as old as they thought it was at that time, there should have been 54 feet. Actually, on an interview, Armstrong said that his greatest fear about landing on the moon was sinking out of sight into the lunar dust - they were that adamant in their belief about this that they put large pads on the landing craft to help spread the weight of the machine so as not to sink into the dust.


As essentialsaltes pointed out, the initial estimates on which this assumption was based were incorrect.

quote:

What about the various earth clocks that are used to determine the age of the earth, 99% of which point to a young earth?


I've listened to "Our Young Earth" parts 1 and 2. Part 1 gave no examples of these geochronometers that allegedly point to a young earth. Part 2 gave the following examples:

*Thickness of lunar dust (which essentialsaltes already addressed)
*Number of micrometeorites and residual nickel found (or rather, not found) in the fossil record.
*The existences of dust rings between Mars and Jupiter
*Sirius' transition from a red star to a white star
*The sun's shrinking size.
*The amount of helium in our atmosphere.


Regarding micrometeorites:
Meteorites are rather scarce and difficult to find; when they are unearthed, they are difficult to identify because they look similar to ordinary terrestrial rocks. They are also subject to the same forces of erosion and in the cases of iron meteorites, corrosion, as all other minerals. But, despite all of that, this sermon presents old information. We DO have some examples of fossilized meteorites: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof4

Regarding the dust rings:
The claim he makes has a couple flaws: 1.) it overlooks the gravitational forces exerted by the planets near the dust as well as the outward radiative pressure exerted by reflected sunlight. 2.) it operates under the assumption that no new dust is created.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof7

Regarding Sirius:
This is still a bit of a mystery, but has a couple very plausible explanations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius#Red_controversy
Note that the reason that stellar of evolution of Sirius A or Sirius B (it's a binary star system) is rejected by astronomers is not JUST because the timescale of thousands of years is too short for this sort of development, but also because there is no nebulosity found in the region, which should be there had these changes taken place. It's quite possible that the reddish hue was an optical illusion - not all ancient writers described it as being red.

Regarding the sun's shrinking size:
There is little, if any, evidence that the sun is actually shrinking. Even if it had been shrinking recently, given what we know about the behavior of stars, there is no reason to assume that the rate of change would have been constant over the course of its life.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html#_Toc430357875

Regarding the amount of helium in the atmosphere:
There are a few ways that Helium can be removed from our atmosphere, which are overlooked by this YEC assumption. Helium can reach escape velocity just by being heated up and it can be ionized and blown away by polar wind along the earth's magnetic field lines. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof14



quote:

ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way
quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
You are being lied to. Honestly, pick up a book on evolution, or cosmology or some science if this stuff interests you. Because guys like this are straight up feeding you total BS

LOL.

I don't have much else to say, other than I giggled quite a bit reading this.

You might as well have just said "Nuh-uh!"


Perhaps, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. I just took about an hour and looked up every one of those "proofs" and found perfectly reasonable and legitimate answers to all of them. The shrinking sun argument would be known to be bogus to anybody who's seen a Nova/History/Discovery channel documentary on the sun. The lunar dust argument was even discarded by AIG a while ago, so this guy is obviously working from some old information. Either these are old recordings just being rebroadcast or he just doesn't bother to check his facts.

EDIT: I was initially inclined to believe that these were old recordings, but given some of the other individuals mentioned in other sermons (which I haven't yet listened to), it seems they are recent. If that's the case, then this guy really is feeding you a load of BS. If I can spend an hour and find that the premises for most of his arguments are wrong, what does that say about him?

EDIT 2: I just e-mailed Coral Ridge asking when the episodes were originally recorded. Considering that it's 10:30 on a Friday night, I don't expect to hear anything until next week.

-Dan.



drj11 -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 11:19:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

DRJ11:
I really don't want to come across as rude, but you did infer your atheism in your response to me.

Can I ask you a couple of questions in all honesty and with no malice intended?

An atheist says: "There is no God." But to say this one would require all knowledge of everything there is to know in the universe. If I were to say: "There is no Gold in China" then I would need to have intimate knowledge of everything about China, I'd need all knowledge of geological evidence, dental records of the people there, ect... But if I were to say "There is Gold in China" I would only have to know of a single source of gold in the place - very limited knowledge of the place. Likewise, if it is safe to assume that there are some things in this life that you just do not know, and if I were to say for the purpose of our discussion that you know an astonishing 10% of everything there is to know in this universe, do you think that it would be safe to assume that in the 90% of knowledge that you have not yet come across that there is ample evidence for the existence of God?

It is then necessary to realize that the atheist, as defined by his statement: "there is no God," does not exist. Rather, the person must say: "In the limited knowledge that I now possess, I have not yet discovered God."

I realize that you may choose not to believe in God, and that is entirely your business, but I do ask that you to not treat Him with such ridicule, for I feel that you jest with something that is extremely Holy.


Any malice or snipe that may have been apparent in my post wasn't directed towards you (or God), sorry if it looked that way. It was directed towards the Dr James Kennedy.

Well, I dont know if I would call myself an atheist, all though I'm not part of any organized religion anymore (raised Roman Catholic).

But its important to differentiate between atheists, they arent all the same. You have what they call strong atheists, who take an absolutist stance that there is absolutely no god, and you have your weak atheists, who hold a more rational position. Guys like Dawkins, believe it or not, would be an example of a weak atheist. He doesn't see any rational reason to believe a god exists, but if there were concrete proof discovered that proved a god existed, he would believe. It would be irrational not too.

Your strong atheists, for whatever reason, take an irrational and emotional position for the non-existence of a god. Many times, I think, these are people that are just angry at something or they see suffering in the world and just rebel by saying god doesn't exist.

Your weak atheists are like Dr Spock from star trek. For most, their esteemed virtues would be pure reason, logic, and rationality. Taking an absolutist stance that God doesn't exist would be just as irrational to them as believing in God with no proof. That doesn't mean they think that the existence of God is anywhere near probable, however.



drmark -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/11/2008 11:22:47 PM)

quote:

Well, regardless of what you may believe, I do wish that you would listen to one of those lectures. After all, what can it hurt?
Actually, it would potentially damage the basis of humanistic naturalism upon which evolution is founded. That's a little too close for the agno-atheists' comfort level!



iluvatar -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/12/2008 6:51:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Well, regardless of what you may believe, I do wish that you would listen to one of those lectures. After all, what can it hurt?
Actually, it would potentially damage the basis of humanistic naturalism upon which evolution is founded. That's a little too close for the agno-atheists' comfort level!


I wouldn't get too haughty about this lecture series; it's basically the same material Kent Hovind had been using for the last 20 years. It's all very weak and the corrections have been available for some time.

-Dan.



drmark -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/12/2008 9:11:42 AM)

Yes, Dan, it basically boils down to "my scientists are better than your scientists" when we get into these mindless games of who's right in interpreting the evidence. Evolution is unfalsifiable because it's all about origins philosophy and nothing about observational science. The bottom line is not one shred of observational evidence exists for UCD and myriads of observations argue powerfully against it! And you have no "correction" to that simple fact.



Nothingman -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/12/2008 12:31:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Well, regardless of what you may believe, I do wish that you would listen to one of those lectures. After all, what can it hurt?
Actually, it would potentially damage the basis of humanistic naturalism upon which evolution is founded. That's a little too close for the agno-atheists' comfort level!


evolution and old earth does not equate humanistic naturalism in anyway. To believe it does is a completely seperate religious/philosophical question and for you to simply assert this is falacious in the highest degree and, frankly, completely dishonest.



drmark -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/12/2008 7:36:09 PM)

Then you have a total lack of understanding of the history, development, and underlying presuppositions of "evolution and old earth", Nothingman. There's no point continuing this dialogue since we are obviously speaking in different languages.



unclemonkey -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/12/2008 9:59:19 PM)

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

but its always fascinating to peer inside someone's head who's so disconnected with reality.

I didn’t realize you were so self-enamored.



1love1God1way -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/12/2008 10:25:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

but its always fascinating to peer inside someone's head who's so disconnected with reality.

I didn’t realize you were so self-enamored.


Bad, monkey! Bad!

No bananas for you.



drj11 -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/12/2008 11:49:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

but its always fascinating to peer inside someone's head who's so disconnected with reality.

I didn’t realize you were so self-enamored.


You see how the creation 'scientists' lie to you yet monkey? :)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI