Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

sources:
Creation Science: http://www.icr.org


most of the scientist (religious or not) don't believe in evolution theory today. It's sad to know that average people like us are badly outdated =/


about RATE project.
http://www.icr.org/article/3131/

RATE project proved that what peopled believed was a millions of years old diamond was around 6000 years. Dinosaurs aren't millions of years old either, but around 6000ish years also. After testing on many other (pretty much everything they can) materials/fossils. They came with conclusion that earth is not millions of years old, but thousands.


fruit flies: so many of them were bombarded with radiation, but not one became "superior" but became muted for the worst.
what's so special?: evolution theory purly relies on mutation.
note: the article is kinda outdated, the number of fruitfly that was tested on is way greater than that number shown on the page.
http://www.icr.org/article/2602/


and lot of other interesting stuff.

They proved that there was a universal flood with exactly same flood mentioned on Bible regarding on Noah's flood. (not just in one way but in many numerious ways, i'll list some i know).
-The earth used to have at least 10 times the tree we have today, somehow "something" happened to them at the same time.
-the pattern of earth crush (soft crush/hard crush and layers of crush) can be only occured by a flood, and every place on earth has layers
-the pattern of fossils match the "Noah's flood", the activities of organisms, percentage of fossils by type (e.g., why 95% of the fossils are see shells and 85% of that remaining if fish, etc).
-and this isn't science, but just added for fun http://www.icr.org/article/570/

and showed that evolution theory is badly proven theory (well that's why it's theory )

only reason why high school teachers still teach evolution theory is because there are no "substitute" information on origin of humans (I dunno about other countries, but US textbooks (and probably most others too) has to follow certain rules).

This post has been edited by Bismark87 on 11th March 2007 00:31

--------------------

I will be there...

I think you made a mistake in your first sentence, it doesn't make sense to me:

"Almost of the scientist (religious or not) don't believe in evolution theory today."

Are you trying to say that most scientists don't believe in evolution? Or that most do?

As for that site... I have a hard time believing the facts from people with an agenda. They're biased. If you had information from a non-biased source, that would help.

Edit:

I also found a rather weird passage there: http://www.icr.org/article/2598/

"Because the harmful consequences of evolutionary thinking on families and society (abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality, and many others) are evident all around us even infiltrating our churches and seminaries."

1: Homosexuality is not a "consequence". It doesn't even make any sense to think of it as one. There are homosexuals who don't believe in evolution, anyway.

2: The rest of that doesn't make sense, either. How does believing in evolution lead to promiscuity, drug abuse and abortions?



This post has been edited by Elena99 on 10th March 2007 19:50

--------------------

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

what a load of BS man; seriously NO

carbon 14 dating is an incredibly accurate age dating using radioactive decay ; and dinosaurs spanned millions of years ago--fact

you are full of crap

I choose to believe proffessor Hawking than your religion biased post
next you'll be telling us there's no such thing as space-time fabric and instead that jesus and spiderman control time from optimus prime's secret base

Here's the thing about two of these first three posts (not you, Elena ). You're going to believe them if you already believe them. If you don't, fine, you're going to be convinced by the things that point in the same direction that you already more or less sway.

John Aiton, that was a ridiculously offensive post, and I'm hardly a creationist. If you want to dispute it, dispute it reasonably. You post "facts" without any "evidence" and then insult the original poster. I don't agree with anything I saw on that Creationist site, either, but you could at least be courteous enough to not be a jerk about it. If you don't like it, ignore it, don't pick a fight.

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 10th March 2007 20:25

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Beat to the punch by Josh.

Not the cleanest or most expansive or most informative site I've seen on the subject, but good generalized information, OP.

You would do well on this particular board to find more scientific data without the religious overtones, though. Folks around here, in the majority anyway, don't cotton much to faith and Christianity. Don't believe me? Read little John's post again.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Hamedo @ 10th March 2007 15:58)

Folks around here, in the majority anyway, don't cotton much to faith and Christianity.  Don't believe me?  Read little John's post again.

Please don't generalize the entire board that way, either - that's no better in intent than aiton's post, just slightly more kindly worded. Just because some express their faith differently doesn't make this a huge site full of heathens. There's a wide spectrum of perspectives of faith here, not just black and white.

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 10th March 2007 21:00

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

ya, it may be bias, it may not.
but my focus is on their FACTs. NOT their opinions and yes they do have their beliefs, i'm not forcing you to believe it. I'm not telling you to be a religious person either.
hint*ignore*hint*it

Elena: was typo, fixed
as for ur questions, I didn't want to bring that topic, the site just happened to have thier opinions at the same time
I owe you an appology, I gave more of "biased" source, I couldn't find any other for now. (as for I didn't learn about their founding from their sites).
Those ideas are "implied" from their studies they found.

John aiton: glad to see someone has interest and replied to the topic
creation scientists also used C14 dating method, but they had additional calculations

Quote

"nuclear decay most likely accelerated in the past"

Quote

"Then in 2001, we commissioned (through an intermediary who kept us anonymous) one of the world's best experimenters in this field to measure the leak rates of our particular zircons at various temperatures. Not being a creationist, he was not familiar with our prediction. Not being in touch with the experiment, we had no control over its outcome. This was an ideal way to get unbiased data.

When we plotted the results, they fell right on the 6000 year [Helium leak...the new method]prediction!"

official research paper of RATE project: http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf


if any of you believe it's BS, go ahead, say it. Im not offended and it's your opinion. After all, i do wanna know what you guys think

This post has been edited by Bismark87 on 11th March 2007 01:14

--------------------

I will be there...

I love having diverse opinions on a topic presented to the table (it bugs me that textbooks will present the theory of global warming, but never mention anything about the opposing argument)

Personally i enjoyed the apsect about a large flood, which would support a story such as noah's arc, and other global flood folklore.

Quote

One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family, has been the ubiquitous presence of flood legends in the folklore of people groups from around the world. And the stories are all so similar. Local geography and cultural aspects may be present but they all seem to be telling the same story.

Quote

They proved that there was a universal flood

The only thing that bothers me about your original post is blatant misuse of the word prove. In all honestly the have not proven anything, the have found evidence to suggest their argument. In such arguments the word prove should never be stated.

a good entertaining read though.

--------------------

"Have you ever seen a baby do that before?"

Thanks bis. But now that you've cleared that up, I'm wondering why you think most scientists don't believe in evolution. It seems to me that it's the other way around; most DO believe in evolution, and shun creationism. Or were you just referring to the US with that statement?

--------------------

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

thx for clean, positive post

actually i meant the word "prove"
I mentioned "proof" on two subjects.
global flood.
and new method of determining an age of fossil/diamond through RATE project.
These are actually proven and accepted by almost any scientists.
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/catastrplt...Baumgardner.pdf : summary (i don't expect anyone to read boring research papers -__- i don't either. and if you do...and understand the whole thing, ur crazy ): explaination of undenyable fact that whole earth is covered with layers and soft/hard crush.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research..._igneousbodies/ : summary: certain materials that are presend today (like certain type of coal/graphites, duunno) that can only be explained through a universal flood.


If it was simple evidence to support some arguement, I wouldn't have became interested nor I would post here.


Elena: ya US, i didn't think about internationally(but most likely internally too) >.< maybe i'll go figure that out someday and ask international scientists if i get a chance
Majority of the scientists used to believe in evolutionary theory in the past.
but almost no scientists today that knows about researches from creation science don't believe in the evolution theory.

Keep in mind that Creation science didn't start full of christians. It was very few number of the members and the founder that was christian. afaik about the history of these scientists, every scientists became christian. When they were introduced of RATE project, they reconsidered. When universal flood was proven in multiple ways, they all became christian. afaik, everyone in main team is christian.
but why am I saying this? When they were researching regarding on univeral flood that covered the whole earth, many scientists weren't Christians. afaik,
When the RATE project started, majority of the scientists weren't christians either.
So when those two work was found....i doubt it was biased work.

This post has been edited by Bismark87 on 11th March 2007 03:53

--------------------

I will be there...

Scientists reject evolution?

Carbon dating.

Helium diffusion from zircons.

Since you seem to be pushing Zircons so much, another page about fallacies of that argument.

--------------------

With the lights out
It's less dangerous

So all the nasty schools out there are in fact telling children things that aren't true? And of course the government controls the schools... If that doesn't lead to some weird conspiracy theory about bringing down organised religion everywhere, I'm not sure what will.

I think the first link that A_True_Stigma offers is a little bit more accurate as to the 'Scientists stopped believing in evolution a long time ago, it's a load of rubbish theory.'

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Quote

If it was simple evidence to support some arguement, I wouldn't have became interested nor I would post here.

I'd like to bring to your attention that your sources listed do not use the word prove, or proof, not even once. Your sources say "evidence that suggests".

all statisticians and scientists will tell you not to use the word prove or proof, this is the real world being discussed, not geometry.

--------------------

"Have you ever seen a baby do that before?"

Wait, wait, wait... So, it's saying that Earth is actually thousands of years old, instead of millions? Wow, I was just learning about that in school, and I'm surprised that my teacher never mentioned this... Was this just discovered?

Anyway, that's kinda weird stuff...

--------------------

We, who cannot see into tomorrow, have no way of knowing... But... But... If you don't find dreams yourself... if you don't capture your ambitions... happiness won't just come to you.

Not just discovered, no. It's a common belief in Christianity. Your teacher probably didn't mention it because, well, I'm guessing you're not in a Catholic school. I know my teacher's never talked about it when I was in school, except for religious studies classes.

--------------------

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

When growing up, I was attending a Catholic elementary school that was connected to a Church in a predominately Italian community. Needless to say, when they told us about the history of the Earth, this was the version that was pushed on us. Of course, they presented both Evolution and Creationism/Intelligent Design but made it seem like the latter was more accurate. Of course, they also had us believe that the mountain in the center of Montreal was actually a Volcano which would erupt if we didn't love God or sinned.

Still, it's important to remember that either side of the fence will have a strong argument to their cause and that doesn't mean either one is definitive. Of course, discrediting and picking apart the argument of the other side will also make them seem more in the right.

Really, all I got out of this article was a good laugh.

--------------------

Okay, but there was a goat!