/sci/ - Science & Math

[Young Earth Creation No.5474251]

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Can mutations create new information? http://creation.com/mutations-new-information

Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

Creation Seminar 1 - Kent Hovind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

Kent Hovind Defeats an Entire Room of Evolutionists http://youtube.com/watch?v=BREWm54e0NU

A Scientific Critique Of Evolution http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp

Peer reviewed scientific paper shows there hasn't been enough time in the history of the universe for evolution to take place.
Journal BIO-Complexity, "Time and Information in Evolution," Winston Ewert, Ann Gauger, William Dembski, and Robert J. Marks, II once again show that a mathematical simulation of evolution doesn't model biologically realistic processes of Darwinian evolution at all.
http://www.bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.4

[Anonymous No.5474253]

This is the head of a plesiosaur. Notice the smiling mouth and eye holes above the mouth and the elongated neck stretching out.
There have been many sightings of sea monsters by captains and crews over the last 5 centuries. some even swearing in their ship journals not to tell anybody as they were afraid to be ridiculed! The stories are given in Shipwrecks and Sea Monsters, available from CSE of Kent Hovind. By the way "scientists" did not immediately rush in to secure and study the body, as their duty is, but preferred to let it rot and wash away by the sea. If it had been a missing link it would have been headlines for weeks. What keeps these scientists from doing their jobs? You wonder.

Dinosaurs arent millions of years old like were told.

[Anonymous No.5474258]

[Anonymous No.5474262]

>Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

[Anonymous No.5474273]

>>5474253
That's a dolphin. The eye has been cooked by the sun.

[Anonymous No.5474279]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5474286]

>>5474273
see neck >>5474258

[Anonymous No.5474290]

[Anonymous No.5474289]

[Anonymous No.5474293]

[Anonymous No.5474295]

[Anonymous No.5474301]

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, January 1979, p. 25.

[Anonymous No.5474300]

>>5474295
>>5474293
png? what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.5474304]

>>5474289
so, the pea is the evidence conflicting with evolution and the 2 people are the ones looking for the problem and making guesses to trey and find it? i get it!

[Anonymous No.5474305]

>>5474295
Do you have a not-blurry version of this?

[Anonymous No.5474312]

>>5474262
>A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science
"Valid" in so far as the theory must offer a natural explanation to a phenomenon, not a supernatural one.

>Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested.
Yes, this is one of the fundamental criteria of the scientific method. A scientific hypothesis must make predictions that can be tested through observation or experimentation.

[Anonymous No.5474313]

>>5474305
no but i really love that one too

it was in one of hovinds videos

[Anonymous No.5474320]

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

u “In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.

u “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.” George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

[Anonymous No.5474323]

>>5474313
Ah well. I'm not a creationist, but it's a really cute picture.

[Anonymous No.5474326]

The atheistic worldview, based on this supposed history, says that we had an accidental beginning; we developed through random processes and that there is no ultimate hope for the future. It says that there are no absolutes, no basis for morality or ethics outside of what each person decides is right for themselves.


Atheism vs. theism is sometimes misrepresented as ‘science’ vs. ‘faith’. This is untrue because evolution is a worldview that is also based on faith. In fact, evolutionists and creationists have the exact same scientific facts to examine. There isn’t a scientific observation that a creationist would disagree with an evolutionist about. Creationists disagree with evolutionists conclusions because we do not agree with their starting presuppositions.

The real difference is that of the world history that each group believes in, by faith. Why by faith? Because we cannot travel back in time to see the first life form evolve or observe God create the universe. So our understanding of what happened in the past is ultimately accepted by faith. We can use scientific methods to observe evidence in the present, and then make an assessment of which history is best supported by that evidence.

[Anonymous No.5474339]

The Scriptures imply that this originally created information was not in the form of one ‘super species’ from which all of today’s populations have split off by this ‘thinning out’ process, but was created as a number of distinct gene pools. Each group of sexually reproducing organisms had at least two members. Thus,

Each original group began with a built-in amount of genetic information which is the raw material for virtually all subsequent useful variation.

Each original group was presumably genetically and reproductively isolated from other such groups, yet was able to interbreed within its own group. Hence the original kinds would truly have earned the modern biological definition of ‘species’.4 We saw in our dog example that such ‘species’ can split into two or more distinct subgroups which can then diverge (without adding anything new) and can end up with the characteristics of ‘species’ themselves—that is, reproductively isolated from each other but freely interbreeding among themselves. The more variability in the original gene pool, the more easily can such new groups arise. However, each ‘splitting’ reduces the potential for further change and hence even this is limited. All the descendants of such an original kind which was once a species, may then end up being classified together in a much higher taxonomic category—e.g., family.

[Anonymous No.5474361]

>>5474323
>Ah well. I'm not a creationist

why not
do you think that dinosaur tissue survived all those millions of years?
http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-protein-even-more-confirmation

or is it just because it has implications of god?
theres no need to worry because god is long suffering for you

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[Anonymous No.5474387]

Luke 15:1-7
1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.

2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

[KKRajputana !KKRajputhA No.5474391]

>>5474339
I pick C. Coyote.
The other ones fit nicely in my hand and have a peel tab like a soda can so I can eat them.

If you have never peeled a dog, you're missing out.

[Anonymous No.5474408]

[Anonymous No.5474409]

>>5474361
Sure, why not?

Science follows facts. If an outlier like finding soft tissue in a fossil doesn't match up to our current understanding of how fossils form, then our current understanding is wrong and must grow to accommodate that, to better reflect reality. I can't very well dismiss something just because it doesn't fit into my current worldview.

Aside from that, there has been tissue preserved in amber for millions of years so it is possible for stuff to last that long - if exceedingly uncommon. Being inside a rock might do that as well - you're not going to get more protected than being surrounded on all sides by stone, after all. So yeah, I could see that happening. Anything is possible after all.

[Anonymous No.5474411]

[Anonymous No.5474417]

>>5474251
Hey, ding bat

God as a concept can be considered nothing but infinite creation, yes?

And the devil, as s thing can be considered nothing but infinite twist, as anything that diverges from pure must be evil no?

Anyway, thats a Wave, a Lightwave if you want

And yes, the Devil did make the dinasaur bones, just the same way it made you

Cheers to Unifying Theory of anything & everything.

(Buddhists say nothing is everything? Twist without creation is nothing, same deal with the Hindi interpretation of 0)

So please, take your "It made anything without knowing anything" and apply it to your own halfassed metaphors

I know this thread will get deleted so thats the only reason im posting

[Anonymous No.5474420]

[Anonymous No.5474423]

[Anonymous No.5474424]

>>5474417
All that being I am simply reminding you that everything in your bible is correct, if a few artistic excursions were placed to create enough of a self sustained practice

As all religions in the world have started with just that very base code, just the as we did

[Anonymous No.5474426]

>Kent Hovind

[Anonymous No.5474428]

[Anonymous No.5474439]

[Anonymous No.5474446]

[Anonymous No.5474447]

>>5474411
Hey, I know this one!

The rocks and fossils can be used to date each other, but that's only because we know other things about each. For example, we can date rock using radioisotope dating, and then we know how old each layer is. Knowing that, we know how old fossils in that particular rock are. Then if we find a bunch of the same fossils in a different rock, we can assume that they were from around the same time.

Of course, you want to use multiple kinds of checking to be really sure in case one dating method is off or done incorrectly or something.

[Anonymous No.5474453]

>>5474447
Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).

However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.


Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.

[Anonymous No.5474455]

>>5474453
>Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).

>implying 2% error isn't precise on the time scales we're talking

[Anonymous No.5474462]

>>5474453
Do you realize how much evil your doing in the world by maintaining this belief?
Why?

[Anonymous No.5474469]

>>5474462
evil would be the people lying to you

[Anonymous No.5474476]

>>5474453
>
It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.

No, because discarding data that conflicts with all the other data you have is good. Like anything else, you gather data from as many different sources as possible, then discard the ones that don't make sense.

It's like if your writing an exam, and nine sources say Neil Armstrong landed on the moon and one says his first name was Lance. the one that says Lance is probably wrong and you would ignore it.

There are other ways to date a rock.

[Anonymous No.5474475]

>>5474469
The Hypocrisy is actually driving me to want to break your neck

Do you think the word of Jesus is still pure after 870 years of mouth to mouth and 3 translations to get it to english?

[Anonymous No.5474501]

>>5474475
>With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.


Is Our Copy of the Bible a Reliable Copy of the Original?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

[Anonymous No.5474509]

>>5474469
Also, do you think lying is evil?

What is this place we exist in by your standards? If it is not God or heaven or Hell & lowers then we exist as what is defining where we go post such? If so then why is Balance not taught in church? And why is it then that any action we commit here can be said to be infinite in comparison?

WHY DO YOU EVEN THINK SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YOU SHOULD JUDGE YOU
Inferiority?
That I guess you could argue is the basis of knowledge.
But at that shouldnt you be satisfied that simply telling someone that there is one god, while not defining what the term means, should leave them with the possible knowledge that such is, just the same way you preach hell.

But wait, NO, its not about belief, its about CONTROL!

OH SO EASY IT IS IN THE RELIGIOUS BZ ALL YOU DO IS SPOUT THIS 1000 YEAR OLD JIZZ AND PEOPLE LAP IT UP AND SPEW IT ON THEIR SCHOOL QUIZ OH WHAT AN EZ BIZ

[Anonymous No.5474513]

>responding to this thread

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous No.5474515]

Yeah, and the edge of the earth is in the Bermuda triangle.

RIGHT GUYS, RIGHT?