what gives credibility?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Random chance does not create perfection or harmony neither in life or nature.

Therefore?

Therefore God exists and might very well be the God of the Jewish people. Happy?

Why should sloppy thinking and ignorant comments make me happy? Sadly, there is no 'there' in your 'therefore.'

 

[mycorrhiza]

I just really hate when people try to claim the young earth theory is a Christian creationist invention. Study history people, stop reading online propaganda and accepting it as fact.

Actually, it is a Christian invention that also partly transfered into Islam. The age of 6000 years is even calculated from the Bible.

Could you provide me with the name of a single atheistic geologist who claims that from the available evidence we can draw the conclusion that the world is only 6000 years old?

 

[gseeker]

2%? Why yes yes that is perfect. Does it not filter out just the right amount of carbon dioxide from the air and provide just enlightened oxygen to sustain life as we know it. Seriously, keep your eyes focused on the big picture.

 

[mycorrhiza]

2%? Why yes yes that is perfect. Does it not filter out just the right amount of carbon dioxide from the air and provide just enlightened oxygen to sustain life as we know it. Seriously, keep your eyes focused on the big picture.

But if 2% is perfect, then why do sugar canes have an efficiency of 8% and other plants only have an efficiency of lower than 1%? The big picture is that life adapts. The carbon dioxide levels were different before. If there was a creator, He could make the efficiency higher, but the oxygen release lower so that plants would be better survivors.

The anaerobes didn't exactly like the amount of oxygen produced

Also, since we're on plants, how did the angiosperms appear? Is the creation a long process that still continues today?

 

[gseeker]

Actually, it is a Christian invention that also partly transfered into Islam. The age of 6000 years is even calculated from the Bible.

Could you provide me with the name of a single atheistic geologist who claims that from the available evidence we can draw the conclusion that the world is only 6000 years old?

First I never said the earth was 6000 years old, you try to put words in my mouth again. I was arguing the young earth theory. You put 6000 as the age just so you can argue against creationist. Young earth was a theory accepted by scientific community in general. If you don't think there were atheist in the 1800 and 1900 hundreds than you are fooling yourself. As for me naming a atheist scientist who believes in young earth can you name a voodoo practicing geologist who believes in the age of the earth as we understand it now? I say now since scientists tend to change the age of the earth every five or ten years.

 

[gseeker]

But if 2% is perfect, then why do sugar canes have an efficiency of 8% and other plants only have an efficiency of lower than 1%? The big picture is that life adapts. The carbon dioxide levels were different before. If there was a creator, He could make the efficiency higher, but the oxygen release lower so that plants would be better survivors.

Also, since we're on plants, how did the angiosperms appear? Is the creation a long process that still continues today?

If there were a Creator he would set up a air purifying system designed to function and change in a way to sustain life. Oh wait, that's exactly what the photosynthesis system we have in place does? Oh wow, thanks for providing more evidence for the proof of God!

 

[gseeker]

Let me make one thing clear, I will not try to argue on biology unless I already have an understanding of the system or creatures you are referencing. Biology has not been my field of study and high school biology class was 14 years ago.

 

[Krok]

The theory of the young earth was widely accepted as fact up into the 1900s and not by creationists but by the vast majority of scientists. They never disproved that theory but instead adapted the idea of the age of the earth as they understand it now to allow them to incorporated the theory of evolution. That is historical fact.

No, it certainly wasn't.

An old earth was accepted by, for example, Lyell, who published Principles of Geology in 1830 to 1833, long before the publication of Origin of Species by Darwin in 1859.

This made Lyell an important and accepted theoretical geologist. That's why he also became one of the foremost geologists and lecturers of his time. He lectured geology to and also had a huge influence on the young Charles Darwin. Along with Darwin's other lecturers (scientists in those days were called naturalists), including Henslow, Owen, and Grant.

So, gseeker, what you wrote was not true. The Theory of Evolution was derived after the acceptance of an old earth by people who studied the earth (including rocks). Not the other way round.

 

[gseeker]

Atheist Says What: Young Earth Creationist Doctor of Palaeontology??? lmfao I love this guys reaction.

 

[gseeker]

No, it certainly wasn't.

An old earth was accepted by, for example, Lyell, who published Principles of Geology in 1830 to 1833, long before the publication of Origin of Species by Darwin in 1859.

This made Lyell an important and accepted theoretical geologist. That's why he also became one of the foremost geologists and lecturers of his time. He lectured geology to and also had a huge influence on the young Charles Darwin. Along with Darwin's other lecturers (scientists in those days were called naturalists), including Henslow, Owen, and Grant.

So, gseeker, what you wrote was not true. The Theory of Evolution was derived after the acceptance of an old earth by people who studied the earth (including rocks). Not the other way round.

So lets see, he came up with the old earth theory how long before Darwin came up with the theory of evolution? And how many years after Darwin's evolutionary theory did the old earth theory gain popularity in the scientific community? Besides I wasn't saying that evolution came before the old earth theory just that the old earth theory has changed to incorporate evidence of evolution especially in modern times. I should have made myself more clear. Please though while you are at it explain to the people on here how long it took before old earth theory was accepted by the vast majority of "naturalists".

 

[Krok]

…..

Woopie. I love this. gseeker, I'm a geologist. And I also know something about some of the dating methods. I'll point out the untruths about dating methods very, very quickly, seeing that creationists always lie about everything!

The age of the earth did change due to the discovery of genetics.

Could you provide a peer-reviewed scientific publication doing this? I don't think so. I think you lied as geologists determine the age of the earth. Not geneticists.
The age of the earth used to be determined every time we found an older rock. Nothing to do with genetics.
The latest estimation of the age of the earth is due to the evidence from radiometric age dating and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Carbon dating does not go back far enough to determine the age of the earth,…

With modern technology, carbon dating works up to 60 000 years. It alone shows that the earth is waaaay over 6 000 years old.

Who’s ever tried to determine the age of the earth by carbon dating, anyway? That guy must be really, really stupid. What carbon dating does show, however, is that the earth is waaay more than 6 000 years old.

…other forms of radiometric dating are only viable if you know the complete environmental record of changes in the area being tested.

Nonsense. Other forms of radiometric dating works on the fact that the minerals exist. You certainly don’t have to have any “environmental record of changes”.

Who told you this? The guy who did lied to you.

Plate tectonics do in no way contribute to the age of the earth since the speed of change is not a constant.

Who’s ever tried to use plate tectonics to determine the age of the earth? That guy must be really, really stupid.

What plate tectonics do show however, is that the earth is waaaaay more than 6 000 years old. The Hawaiin Island chain, for example.

I just really hate when people try to claim the young earth theory is a Christian creationist invention.

Actually, an earth 6 000 years old was invented by bronze-age goat herders. Very ignorant people.

Study history people, stop reading online propaganda and accepting it as fact

Study geology, gseeker. That’s how you would realize that you were lied to and now you try to spread those lies, too.

 

[mycorrhiza]

First I never said the earth was 6000 years old, you try to put words in my mouth again. I was arguing the young earth theory. You put 6000 as the age just so you can argue against creationist.

Young Earth is a Christian theory based on the Bible. When we're speaking of young earth the age is generally 6000-10000 years. A young Earth in general could be based on faulty scientific research or other religions than Judaism/Christianity/Islam, but the western understanding of a Young Earth is based on the Bible.

Young earth was a theory accepted by scientific community in general. If you don't think there were atheist in the 1800 and 1900 hundreds than you are fooling yourself.

Of course there were atheists, but the scientific fields weren't very developed yet and the absolute majority of all scientists were religious.

As for me naming a atheist scientist who believes in young earth can you name a voodoo practicing geologist who believes in the age of the earth as we understand it now?

What does that have to do with anything? It's a way for you to prove that it is based on science rather than religious belief.

I say now since scientists tend to change the age of the earth every five or ten years.

They do? We're approaching a more specific age, yes, but we aren't really changing the actual age anymore. The reason that scientists believed the Earth was old was not because of evolution, but rather because of new evidence in the fields connected to geology.

If there were a Creator he would set up a air purifying system designed to function and change in a way to sustain life. Oh wait, that's exactly what the photosynthesis system we have in place does? Oh wow, thanks for providing more evidence for the proof of God!

Didn't God care about the many anaerobes that died in the new oxygenated athmosphere? That something works is not actually proof of God. The system of photosynthesis isn't as perfect as it would be with a perfect creator. The Earth itself isn't as perfect as we would expect. Why would God allow for several mass extinctions?

 

[mycorrhiza]

So lets see, he came up with the old earth theory how long before Darwin came up with the theory of evolution? And how many years after Darwin's evolutionary theory did the old earth theory gain popularity in the scientific community? Besides I wasn't saying that evolution came before the old earth theory just that the old earth theory has changed to incorporate evidence of evolution especially in modern times. I should have made myself more clear. Please though while you are at it explain to the people on here how long it took before old earth theory was accepted by the vast majority of "naturalists".

Correlation does not imply causation. It was not due to evolution that old earth was accepted, but both theories evolved around the same time and found acceptance in the scientific community not because of dogma and desperate attempts to explain evolution, but because of scientific evidence.

 

[Krok]

"Poll Options
What makes a creationist scientist credible?"

Nothing.

Any scientist does science. That's it. Science can't be "creationist". It's an oxymoron.

People who call themselves "creation scientists" simply do not tell the truth. They left the scientific method. They do pseudo-science.

 

[gseeker]

Woopie. I love this. gseeker, I'm a geologist. And I also know something about some of the dating methods. I'll point out the untruths about dating methods very, very quickly, seeing that creationists always lie about everything! Could you provide a peer-reviewed scientific publication doing this? I don't think so. I think you lied as geologists determine the age of the earth. Not geneticists.
The age of the earth used to be determined every time we found an older rock. Nothing to do with genetics.
The latest estimation of the age of the earth is due to the evidence from radiometric age dating and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. With modern technology, carbon dating works up to 60 000 years. It alone shows that the earth is waaaay over 6 000 years old.

Who’s ever tried to determine the age of the earth by carbon dating, anyway? That guy must be really, really stupid. What carbon dating does show, however, is that the earth is waaay more than 6 000 years old. Nonsense. Other forms of radiometric dating works on the fact that the minerals exist. You certainly don’t have to have any “environmental record of changes”.

Who told you this? The guy who did lied to you. Who’s ever tried to use plate tectonics to determine the age of the earth? That guy must be really, really stupid.

What plate tectonics do show however, is that the earth is waaaaay more than 6 000 years old. The Hawaiin Island chain, for example.
Actually, an earth 6 000 years old was invented by bronze-age goat herders. Very ignorant people.
Study geology, gseeker. That’s how you would realize that you were lied to and now you try to spread those lies, too.

Okay buddy, lets argue geology, I am not a geologist but I did study at auburn and Montana tech. Lets start with the age of the earth. Early on was not the age of fossils and the age of strata determined by circular reasoning? Fossils were dated by the layer of earth they were found in and the layers of earth were dated by the fossils found in them, dated I might add by a purely hypothetical dating process? Now lets talk about. C14 dationg also known as carbon dating. Are you really trying to say that no environmental changes can affect the reasons say oh I don't know, pollution or volcanic eruptions do not alter the reading? Gee how large can volcanic fall outs be? Its okay I'm sure you take into account every volcanic eruption that could have affected your reading over millions of years.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

2%? Why yes yes that is perfect. Does it not filter out just the right amount of carbon dioxide from the air and provide just enlightened oxygen to sustain life as we know it.

Classic! :biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So lets see, he came up with the old earth theory ...

"old earth theory"

The Dunning-Kruger effect never ceases to entertain.​

 

[gseeker]

Geologist hmm must be a paleontologist too since you choose to dig a hole for yourself without seeing what is right in front of your face. I never said the earth was 6000 years old I'm am arguing not as a creationist but under the theory that the earth could be much younger then is claimed. Lets see your argument about tectonics providing evidence of an old earth. Ill just make this a simple question, is change a constant? Now my study was in mineralogy not paleontology. I'm sure you are going to go into detail about the amount of time pressure and constant heat it takes for some crystalline structures to form. Let me state that change is not a constant and everything had to have a starting point. Creation would be something made and set in motion becoming a self sustaining system.

 

[Nakosis]

Wow, that is the best answer I've seen so far to any argument relating to creation and evolution.
Shouldn't any science be considered a theoretical science though?

From my understanding there are those scientists which develop the theories and those which try to make practical use of those theories.

The thinkers and the doers. The doers rely on the thinkers to come up with the theories and the thinkers rely on the doers for more information. Successes, failures which then goes to support, reject or show where the theories need to be modified.

Theories have to be tested, validated. Some scientists have to do that work.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Geologist hmm must be a paleontologist too since you choose to dig a hole for yourself without seeing what is right in front of your face. I never said the earth was 6000 years old I'm am arguing not as a creationist but under the theory that the earth could be much younger then is claimed. Lets see your argument about tectonics providing evidence of an old earth. Ill just make this a simple question, is change a constant? Now my study was in mineralogy not paleontology. I'm sure you are going to go into detail about the amount of time pressure and constant heat it takes for some crystalline structures to form. Let me state that change is not a constant and everything had to have a starting point. Creation would be something made and set in motion becoming a self sustaining system.

Did I mention the Dunning-Kruger effect? :yes: