Uncle Martin Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by: CD27yes, i know that, it is also teh sme way einstein was able to disprove newton's laws, by having a replacement and by proving how he was incorrect. CD, can you please tell me more about your above statament. I've never heard that Einstein disproved Newton. I can't believe how much I still have to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Well, it appears to work for me now. Yeah! Sorry for taking the thread back off course, but now I'd like to get back down to business. One of the arguments used against evolution is "There wasn't enough time! The Earth is only 6 - 10 thousand years old". I'll pick one of the evidences I mentioned earlier in an attempt to show that the Earth is much older. The "materialist" explanation for the Hawaii island chain is that a tectonic plate is slowly gliding. in a northwestern direction, over a hot spot, which remains still. So the hot spot causes volcanic eruptions that slowly build up an island over it - as time goes by, that island eventually moves past the hot spot and a new island begins to form in its old place. This process recurs. As each new island is formed, the older ones are gradually worn away by erosion, with the oldest having gone through the most erosion. Note that the most active island currently is the "Big Island", which happens to be the last one in line (lies farthest to the southeast). Futhermore, the most active site on the Big Island is the southeast coast. Also, generally, the smaller islands are those closer to the front of line (the northwestern ones). This all hangs together very nicely. Furthermore, there are other independent evidences that support the notions of tectonic plates slowly moving about and hot spot activity. And, there are other lines of independent evidence - not related to Hawaii - that also point to the same conclusion of an old Earth. It seems to me that if God did create the Earth just 6 - 10 thousand years ago, He planted multiple misleading evidences - all pointing to the same general conclusion. How deceptive of Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 well, newton said that space and time were absolute and that the speed of light was relative, einstein said that space and time were relative and that the speed of light is absolute. he proved this with his theory of relativity, however, i have to disagree that light is absolute. if anything, i belive einstein's law of everything being relative, but i also believe that EVERYTHING is relative, including light. as for telemad, your conclusions are also very good, may i add somerhing that may disagree with your comment? well, i'm going to anyways, so... let's say you take a bottle of water, this bottle of water is filled with a bunch of different types of dirt, all having a different density, shake this bottle up to the point that all the dirts are mixed together. let it settle for about a week. when you look at it again, the dirts will have settled in layers, just as the earth's dirts have. first off, this proves that the great flood may have really happened on earth. another thing, some scientists not to long ago figured out how to greate real diamonds by preasurizing them, this means what tok thousands of years to occur, could be done in one single day. now, let's say that during the time earth was forming itself from plasma to solid it was spinning pretty fast, much much faster than it is today. this would put enough preassure on these newly forming dirts to mak them "age" jsut as those diamonds did. and god is hardly deceptive, do you really think somoene of that time and age could even comprehend what god was telling him? most likely not, so these people put thse terms down the best they could, it is their miswriting, not god's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 CD27: let's say you take a bottle of water, this bottle of water is filled with a bunch of different types of dirt, all having a different density, shake this bottle up to the point that all the dirts are mixed together. let it settle for about a week. when you look at it again, the dirts will have settled in layers, just as the earth's dirts have. first off, this proves that the great flood may have really happened on earth. A geologist I am not. But I very much doubt that all the strata are arranged vertically according to density. Do you have any mainstream evidence that supports such a position? PS: I am curious what your explanation for the Hawaii island chain is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 the only evidence i have is from my very own experiment, bnut it is all logged in my head, so it would be difficult to give it to you. there is a website however, that you may find something similar at, you'll have to did through it though. go to the archives. http://www.drdino.com as for the hawiian chains, i really don't know what that even says, if you'd like to update me on that information, i can give it a shot, maye i can explain it, amybe i can't, i won't know until i know what i am trying to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Yes!!! finally, freethinker, i have sufficient evidence for your question of how light proves that the universe is "billions of years old". go to thise web page. http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=PhysicalScience&varPage=StarsBillionsLightYearsAway.jsp it also hs links in it to prove what it says. so read this, tel me what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 here is some more convincing evidence: http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=UniverseIsNotBillionsofYearsOld.jsp i may even put more. in fact, i plan on putting them all in one new thread, so let's ee how it works out there, shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 So I doubted that all the strata are arranged vertically according to density and asked you for any mainstream evidence that supports such a position. You have none. Now, what about the animals? Were they sorted by density during the flood too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Martin Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 CD, how do dinosaurs fit in with your flood? You must admit that they existed at some time. YET your bible fails to explain away this anomoly. Surely someone would have mentioned T-Rex roaming through the village 6000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 well, since you must know about the animals, you ever heard of noah's ark? yea, all the animal were put on tehre. quite a big boat huh? took the guy a VERy long time to build it as well. read my new post, it has three pages of solid evidence, you may find your answers there well, they did, if you read some history. they actually have fossils of man and dinosaur footprints side by side, it's in the evidence i posted on the new thread "Evolution VS. Creationism" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 By UNCLE:CD, how do dinosaurs fit in with your flood? You must admit that they existed at some time. YET your bible fails to explain away this anomoly. Surely someone would have mentioned T-Rex roaming through the village 6000 years ago. Hi there Unc! Ok, I'm going to spend the time to read all of this thread today (geez, you guys posted a lot of crap while I was gone!), but I wanted to just jump right in for now... Dinos existed. I saw their bones in the Smithsonian. ;-) MY Bible doesn't call them dinosaurs though, as that term was not coined when MY Bible was written. However, MY Bible does mention behemoths and leviathans (in the Book of JOB), as well as other un-named large sea and land creatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 irish, perhaps we could team up? lol. i could use someone with the intelligence as you, it could help us both..i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 CD27, about the supposed human footprints along with dinosaur ones, that's been dropped by most Creationists. Here's a link that provides many other links on the topic. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm">http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm</a> Here's one that you should read: note the site...it's not an "evilutionist" one but a Creationist one. http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs106.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 really? oops..lol, sry. i can rad over it...but, FREETHINKER, i do accept many things that can be proven correct, i have yet to see how evolution itself is proven..care to give me some proofs without critisism? lol Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 hmm.... fossils records,biochemistry similarities,similarities in structures,similarities in developments of embryoes. details?they are similar lol...which suggests a common ancestor.dont know much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 me eitherlol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Tim_Lou: ... biochemistry similarities, similarities in structures, ... they are similar lol...which suggests a common ancestor. Indeed. All life forms - from humans to ants, from oak trees to E. coli - have the same general biochemistry. For example, not only are they all made of cells, but in all of them DNA is used to store the genetic information and RNA is used to make proteins, and proteins are used for various purposes such as catalyzing reactions. All organisms use the same genetic code (with only a handful of partial exceptions). Structurally, all animals' cells are very similar. For example, mitochondria have their own small, circular DNA that is separate from that in the nucleus...the surpsring part is that there is a set of universal mitochonria genes: virtually all animals have the same set of a few dozen genes. All animal eyes are also related genetically and anatomically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts