Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:19 am Post subject: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate
I know this is a very basic analogy. But if all non red heads were forbidden from reproducing. and in six hundred years everyone would undoubtedly have red hair. I doubt god invented that.
Unless your implying that the passing on of characteristics and the small amount of mutation that always happens, is a act of god. But i doubt it.
So then i always ask, what is god? If you think its a human type entity then i cant help but thinking that's ridiculous and self centered.
But more and more, i find the educated man seems to refine his god to a subtle thing.
Its like they refine god to being the force of life or existence in general. There for im perplexed to why they choose to call it god in the first place.
I understand the gradual development of wings is believable. But there certianly are other things that have come about. Amazing inventions in a animals anatomy. That truly is amazing and its understandable that its hard to believe. I cant think of any example at the moment. But life is mind blowing and amazing.
And all extinctions should be viewed as the ultimate tragedy.
Schmal_Turm hasn't replied to my questions yet. There may be some reasons for that. And i respect that.
Some of these reasons may be. A. He has simply not had the time.(doesn't check forum all the time) B. They are personal questions. C. He thinks im too rigid in my belief system and there is absolutely no point in having a conversation about it with a person like me.
Now granted i don't no his beliefs and probably wont be given a Q&A with him.
But i cant help believing that any one who denies evolution or other things about understood history.
Must believe 2 things.
A. Its because of super natural reasons. Magic... Or
B. The massive cover up. Or a conspiracy theory/belief of extreme proportions.
C. Aliens. Probably the least outrages IMO
This all depends on how much of understood history they deny or refute.
For example i would consider the statement that dinosaurs/neanderthal did not exist would be extreme. But it depends on what there reasons are.
Finally i think this crappy world is as it is, and theirs no such thing as magic.
Added. You can view the process of evolution with breading dogs.
I have literally meet a guy who fully excepted that domesticated dogs of all sizes have been bread directly from wolfs.
He then simply shook his head and could not except that naturally life could be the same.
artificial selection was acceptable but not natural selection. Keep in mind he was 16 years old.
ADDED/
[quote]
Quote:
humans are 98% compatible with the chimpanzees; only problem is that 2% difference is something like 300 DNA strands. Seems to me that’s quite a chasm to cross to make humans fit into the evolutionary picture.
I admit this is a hard one to swallow. I'm not a chimpanzee expert. Nor have i spent time with them.
Keep in mind we are apparently 65% water. And if thats true... well. Looks can be deceptive.
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate
Antony_nz,
So I am finally getting back to you and your questions. I decided that maybe the best way of answering your query is instead of giving you answers to the age of life on the Earth I would give you some points that the person I briefly mentioned, retired USAF officer Walt Brown, made that got me to question my evolution beliefs on the supposed age of the Earth. Mind you, none of this proves anything, as is the same with the theory of evolution; it only gives a person pause to think:
Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years.
Over twenty-seven billion tons of sediments, primarily from our rivers, are entering the oceans each year. Obviously, this rate of sediment transport has not been constant and has probably been decreasing as the looser top soil has been removed. But even if it has been constant, the sediments which are now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. Therefore, the continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old.
The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth is such that after 5 billion years, the equivalent of 182 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there should be an abundance of nickel in the crustal rocks of the earth. No such concentration has been found—on land or in the oceans.
If the moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated extensive layers of space dust—possibly a mile in thickness. Before instruments were placed on the moon, NASA was very concerned that our astronauts would sink into a sea of dust. This did not happen; there is very little space dust on the moon.
Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their evolution that began a thousand million years ago.
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:36 am Post subject: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate
I see those quotes plagiarized all over the internet. Each one would have you believe that the rate of X has been constant since the creation of our planet and the moon. Some of those quotes are 70 years old as well, published in creationist magazines or books. All of these claims have also been debunked not just by anti-creationist believers.
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate
Yes Mooxe, these are all over the net; many sites giving credit to the author, so no plagiarism there. The problem I see though is that if a scientist says this is bunk, who do you think the general population is going to believe? Some flat-earth society member or this person over here who has a PhD, etc.
And yet we are fed constant trash as the people in authority many times don't have a clue and don't want to admit it, or maybe the answer is just too unbelievable. For example, I have seen too many times where the so-called authorities would have us believe that this herd of mammoths used to live as far as Siberia trudging around in snow that covers everything for up to 6 months or more. And yet an average elephant eats 330-375lbs of vegetation a day. Do they really think that a herd of these mammoths, numbering in the thousands, are able to find that much food a day in the frozen north? Yet that is the constant image that is broadcast to even our young through the animated features. Since the scientists can't come to grips with the idea that maybe something significant happened to change the atmosphere they come up with this asinine theory that the early man is the reason for the demise of the mammoth and mastodon. The Native Americans in hundreds of years were hunting the bison and the herds were still in the millions and yet the cavemen with little more than spears were able to bring the mammoths to extinction?
For those who can't believe in the Great Deluge for religious reasons there is an interesting book, Cataclysm!: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. (the original title was When the Earth nearly Died), by a couple of British scientists: D.S. ALLAN, a Cambridge M.A., is a science historian specializing in paleogeography, particularly in the Arctic regions. A science teacher for many years, he is a skilled cartographer and has made a special study of evidence for climatic and landform change in recent geological times. He lives in Basildon, Essex, England. J.B. DELAIR, B.Sc., is an Oxford-based geologist with wide international and commercial field experience. An anthropologist, he has a special interest in animal and plant distribution and in tribal traditions. He is the Museum Curator of Geology at University of Southampton, England.
Do they really think that a herd of these mammoths, numbering in the thousands, are able to find that much food a day in the frozen north? Yet that is the constant image that is broadcast to even our young through the animated features. .
Using a cartoon film as a reference of scientists feels a bit strange to me.
I know little about mammoth, but a quick look at wiki reviled the following:
Wiki “Their social structure was probably the same as that of African and Asian elephants, with females living in herds headed by a matriarch, whilst bulls lived solitary lives or formed loose groups after sexual maturity.” […]The females spend their entire lives in tight-knit matrilineal family groups, some of which are made up of more than ten members .
Male African elephants are the largest surviving terrestrial animals and can reach a height of 4 m (13 ft) and weigh 7,000 kg (15,000 lb). [..]They can consume as much as 150 kg (330 lb) of food .
So, the "bigest African 7 ton boys" CAN eat up to 330 lb, it is thus the extreem...
While according to wiki the mammoth had a weight of:
However, most species of mammoth were only about as large as a modern Asian elephant (which are about 2.5m to 3m high at the shoulder, and rarely exceeding 5.4 tonnes). .
Do you have some better examples than the "mammoths", please.
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:56 am Post subject: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate
Usually, Bill Nye needs less time than the others to complete his responses. Nye explains evolution as the process of well designed life forms eating (and therefore eliminating) poorly designed life forms.
Hint: Just a biological accident that seems to believe that a well designed life form will not eat him.
And yet we are fed constant trash as the people in authority many times don't have a clue and don't want to admit it, or maybe the answer is just too unbelievable. For example, I have seen too many times where the so-called authorities would have us believe that this herd of mammoths used to live as far as Siberia trudging around in snow that covers everything for up to 6 months or more.
Well, where I live, its long cold winters. We have moose or as we say “elk”. The larger elk weight = 700 Kg.
This is a elk:
Map of where they live:
The elk survives the Winter, obviously..
Why, and how? During the warmer part of the year, the elk eat excessively, putting on much weight. The elk eats 2-3 times as much a day in the summer season compared to the Winter season. So the elk still fined food during the winter, the ground still has berry twigs and heather under the snow. They also eat of trees, twigs and barch also pine. During winter up to 100 different foods is found in the stomach of elks when examined.
The storage of energy from the summer season is a key to get through the winter.
Thus the elk lose 20-25% of its weight during the winters.
I believe all animals who stay the winter here has similar strategies, either put on weight during the summer abundance or go into a deep “sleep” over the winter.
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate
hi
Young earth creationism believes in a literal translation of "day" ... and day meaning a 24 hour period.
Old earth creationism believes that the word "day" in Genesis refers to an epoch (period of time). Therefore a day could represent a time period of 24 hours or millions of years (for example).
Hugh Ross, of the "reasons to believe" website, explains old earth creationism from a more scientific viewpoint.
I personally believe the old earth explanation of creation. And as a person who treasures our human ability to reason and think critically, I doubt evolution accurately explains life as we know it ... mainly due to it's underpinning believe in random events.
Although we can't say for sure what belief system is true ... we can probably all agree that what we believe plays a pivotal and definite role in our interaction with each other and the universe.
An interesting point mentioned in the Bible is that God says He is able to declare the end from the beginning. If there is written record describing and predicting accurately events in the future ... then it would seem reasonable to research its validity.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.jpg)
