True Age of the Earth

Originally posted by sonhouse
There you go, devolving into proselytizing, unable to come up with a real response.

What is unreal about my response?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is unreal about my response?

You want us on the one hand to believe there is an actual science of creationism but when driven into a corner by the complete inability of so-called creation scientists to make real arguments you fall back on preaching. God did it, halleluya.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You want us on the one hand to believe there is an actual science of creationism but when driven into a corner by the complete inability of so-called creation scientists to make real arguments you fall back on preaching. God did it, halleluya.

I presented links to real scientist making real arguments for creation, but you put your head up your arse and do your talking from there.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I presented links to real scientist making real arguments for creation, but you put your head up your arse and do your talking from there.

what arguments can you present in support of creationism?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
what arguments can you present in support of creationism?

Design in Nature

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/signs01.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
Design in Nature

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/signs01.html

He said YOUR arguments, not a link(s)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
He said YOUR arguments, not a link(s)

I have no original arguments that I can claim to be my own. Why should that be a requirement since the design in nature is evidence of a designer of supernatural abilities like the God of the Holy Bible. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have no original arguments that I can claim to be my own. Why should that be a requirement since the design in nature is evidence of a designer of supernatural abilities like the God of the Holy Bible. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

present your arguments and make a case for design in nature as evidence for the biblegod.
[hint, they don't have to be your original arguments. if you have heard and understood arguments in support of creationism, you should have no problem making a case in support for creationism.]

"HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!" does not qualify as an argument.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
present your arguments and make a case for design in nature as evidence for the biblegod.
[hint, they don't have to be your original arguments. if you have heard and understood arguments in support of creationism, you should have no problem making a case in support for creationism.]

"HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!" does not qualify as an argument.

Richard Dawkins admits Intelligent Design is possible.

YouTube

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker

Is it really just an illusion?

Is the DNA program code an illusion of intelligence?

Perhaps the whole universe is an illusion, then.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have no original arguments that I can claim to be my own. Why should that be a requirement since the design in nature is evidence of a designer of supernatural abilities like the God of the Holy Bible. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

I have an original argument of my own to support the old Earth idea, but you didn't even understand my reasoning:

The moon and Earth were created at the same time, even in genesis. So viewing the millions of craters on the moon, extremely large ones, the surface of the moon in just a few thousand years as in your fantasy, the moon would still be way too hot to ever land on, probably red hot, there not being enough time for the moon to have cooled down to its present temperature. The moon gets 1300 watts per square meter from the sun, and even with that huge amount of energy input, the surface of the moon is cool enough to walk around on, something we already did in the 60's.

The moon could not possibly have cooled off that quickly. It would have taken a million years for it to have cooled off from all that bombardment, which in fact took place for the most part a couple of billion years ago, and the Earth got whacked just about as badly. These impacts left both Earth and moon molten on the surface, hotter than even Venus, which is only 1000 degrees because of runaway greenhouse gas effects.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I have an original argument of my own to support the old Earth idea, but you didn't even understand my reasoning:

The moon and Earth were created at the same time, even in genesis. So viewing the millions of craters on the moon, extremely large ones, the surface of the moon in just a few thousand years as in your fantasy, the moon would still be way to ...[text shortened]... hotter than even Venus, which is only 1000 degrees because of runaway greenhouse gas effects.

YouTube&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Originally posted by RJHinds
Richard Dawkins admits Intelligent Design is possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyT_AOtwHa4

of course it's possible. humans are intelligent designers, we are already genetically engineering life. we are not talking about what is possible.

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker

Is it really just an illusion?

Is the DNA program code an illusion of intelligence?

Perhaps the whole universe is an illusion, then.

that may be closer to the truth than you imagine.

but enough side tracking, back to my challenge:

present your arguments and make a case for design in nature as evidence for the biblegod.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrntTW3qmZE&feature=endscreen&NR=1

I get it. You think that asssinine argument that C14 found in diamonds proves it can only be a few thousand years old. There is one big hitch in all this. Creation scientists use this while deliberately withholding key information, anything to prove their political war on science.

Take a look at this:
YouTube

I would like to give that anti-semitic assshole a piece of my mind but he cleverly uses the net as a dodge, no dodging now.

C14 is also produced underground by the decay of uranium, which is an extremely long lived isotope and the radioactivity hitting diamonds underground converts N14 into C14 which is produced continuously.

I can only assume you are anti-semitic as well as being totally duped by asssholes like the dude on that video. No dodging now, are you anti-semitic like that dude in your video?

Is that your big answer to my argument of the cooling of the moon? I thought you could come up with something better than a cut and paste of other people's thought. Well, so-called thought anyway.

What is YOUR refutation of my argument without relying on cut and paste?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I get it. You think that asssinine argument that C14 found in diamonds proves it can only be a few thousand years old. There is one big hitch in all this. Creation scientists use this while deliberately withholding key information, anything to prove their political war on science.

Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-o7ArSeSOY

I woul ed thought anyway.

What is YOUR refutation of my argument without relying on cut and paste?

I did not here any anti-semetic statement from him at all, unless you think believing in Jesus, a Jew, is anti-semetic.

P.S. The point he is making about C-14 is that it can not be used to prove something is billions of years old. He used it himself to prove dinosaur bones were only thousands of years old.