Creation Seminar 1 - Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth

[KILLER_CLOWN]

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Have you watched Hovinds' vids on the subject?





The "Flood" changed a lot about our earth.

I have in the past. On my phone I can't see what you posted. But I know I am not missing anything. if the flood is your response then you have nothing. How did kangaroos get to the ark from Australia and consequently back? How did Galapogos turtles get to their present location? The list goes on. The only explanation you could possibly use is the shifting plate tectonics but that doesn't work because the continents move at incredibly steady rates over the years and there is no way they could have been part of one landmass 4,000 years ago.

The KT boundary is a clear line of sediment observable all over the world whenever rocks that old are exposed. There have never been dinosaurs found above it, and never humans or even hominids of any kind below it.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

The entire point of this thread was to prove that Evolution is a religion that requires belief. How can you dispute that point?

I already did that.

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Just to make the whole evolution thing clear, you cannot PROVE the evolution that Hovind or others demand. There are two types of evolution: micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution are changes that happen at the species level and can occur from one generation to another and can be something as simple as a change in the frequency of gene expression. These are observable characteristics. Macro evolution happens from the same forces that make up micro evolution, but it transcends species and cannot simply be "observed." Basically, small changes over a long period of time, lead to large changes in the species.

This evolution can't be observed and is the target of those who choose not to accept the facts (genetic drift, natural selection, etc.) that make up evolution.

The closest thing that has been observed occured with moths that began rapidly producing darker colored offspring because of polution so that they could blend into the darkened trees.Once the environment began reverting back to lightly colored trees the moths began reverting back to their normal light color. If the trees changed naturally or the environment did not heal, the light colored genes for moths would have been removed from the population due to predation since they are easily seen. Similar things can be seen when domesticated animals such as pigs escape and revert to a more natural and feral look. In just a few generations all the breeding that occurred to remove their tusks, aggressiveness and fur is completely gone.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

It requires belief though.

Gravity is a theory. Do you believe in it?

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I am both for Christ AND against Christ.

Jesus refers to this as lukewarm..it doesn't end well.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Gravity is a theory. Do you believe in it?

Yes because it is repeatable and observable..ie real science.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

You still haven't presented anything about dinosaurs. They pose a pretty big problem for a 6,000 year old earth.

maybe from our point of view...but from the out looking in...6ooo seems pretty plausible..IIRC, einstein was studying this in his latter years...first few verses in Genesis tell a huge behind the scenes story...

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Yes because it is repeatable and observable..ie real science.

Gravity itself isn't observable. It's effects are. Hence it being a theory. Same with evolution. It's effects are well documented and observed but you cannot observe a process that takes thousands and millions of years to take place.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Gravity itself isn't observable. It's effects are. Hence it being a theory. Same with evolution. It's effects are well documented and observed but you cannot observe a process that takes thousands and millions of years to take place.

If you think gravity takes trillions of years to take place, I have an experiment for you.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

If you think gravity takes trillions of years to take place, I have an experiment for you.

Your contention was that gravity can be observed therefore it's valid, however it's effects are the only thing observable. The theory of relativity merely describes and explains the observations. Obviously this is an incredibly simple and concise overview.

Micro evolution can be observed. It is valid and factual. Micro evolution over millions of years is macro evolution. Macro evolution is changes in entire species and populations.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I have in the past. On my phone I can't see what you posted. But I know I am not missing anything. if the flood is your response then you have nothing. How did kangaroos get to the ark from Australia and consequently back? How did Galapogos turtles get to their present location? The list goes on. The only explanation you could possibly use is the shifting plate tectonics but that doesn't work because the continents move at incredibly steady rates over the years and there is no way they could have been part of one landmass 4,000 years ago.

The KT boundary is a clear line of sediment observable all over the world whenever rocks that old are exposed. There have never been dinosaurs found above it, and never humans or even hominids of any kind below it.

.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

If you think gravity takes trillions of years to take place, I have an experiment for you.

Um.....He was demonstrating the inductive principle in science. Reading Comprehension fail.


Truth be told, here is my take. This guy has a belief that you share. That is all fine, however, the champion of your cause is bat shit crazy and the evidence is not there. You are in denial.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Micro evolution can be observed. It is valid and factual. Micro evolution over millions of years is macro evolution. Macro evolution is changes in entire species and populations.

That assumes facts not in evidence, when has Macro Evolution ever been observed? Seems to require giant leaps of faith. We can't prove millions of years.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Um.....He was demonstrating the inductive principle in science. Reading Comprehension fail.

If you can't see the difference between The Theory of gravity and that of evolution then i don't know what to tell you.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

That assumes facts not in evidence, when has Macro Evolution ever been observed? Seems to require giant leaps of faith. We can't prove millions of years.

Okay we have two frogs. One through chance has an immunity to batshit crazy mosquito venom. The other does not. Which one will survive in a world of batshit crazy mosquitos? What traits do you think he will pass down? In a land of batshit crazy mosquitos, odds are the one without an immunity stood a significantly lesser chance of passing his DNA, whereas the one who had a freak immunity stood a much higher probability.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Okay we have two frogs. One through chance has an immunity to batshit crazy mosquito venom. The other does not. Which one will survive in a world of batshit crazy mosquitos? What traits do you think he will pass down? In a land of batshit crazy mosquitos, odds are the one without an immunity stood a significantly lesser chance of passing his DNA, whereas the one who had a freak immunity stood a much higher probability.

Do you teach batshit crazy evolution?