I found it, now read it please

[Stellar]

I dont have time to comment on all ur post right now B-S, but actually, dating identified the shround of Turin to be 600 years old. Theres supposed to be another test on it though to veryfy the age though because the first was done on the edge of the shroud were many many many people would have touched it and some people are crying "mistake!"

[chico del nacho]

Albert Einstein believed in some sort of Higher Power, did he not? He was proclaimed as a genius, and if he believed in this, how hard is it for others of less "stature" to do so?

i personally don't think intelligence has any bearing on one's belief. smart or stupid, a person will believe whatever they want.

time is on our side.

is it now?

[saucy]

I agree with Blue Scorpion on this one. Besides, I've proved, though because you said something otherwise it must be true, that all forms of dating are inaccurate. They've used all the dating methods to test things such as rocks, fruit, people, meteors, fossils and a bunch of other objects that are young and old and it just turns out that none of the methods are reliable. Sorry about that. You can go into another long speal about how I'm wrong on so many levels if you want, but I just don't care. There's just too much proof of the supernatural out there for me to hang up my boots because Stellar calls me ingnorant, so I'm done. Peace to you all, have a good day

[Stellar]

Proof. Proof that all of the dating methodes were proven to be inaccurate 100% of the time. Oh thats right, you have none!

[aquatus1]

Saucy, do you have references or cites for these unreliable dates? I mean, from scientific journals with peer-review.

No offense, but I would need something a bit more official than your say-so before I consider something as 'proof'. We need to see the methods, equations, and data used so that we can see wether the proper methodology was followed. Merely saying that it happened is not proof. Even in a court of law, personal testimony would be considered circumstancial at best.

I have no problem with your beliefs, but your methodology is lacking.

Also, just to be clear, are you stating that creationism should be considered to be a scientific theory?

[saucy]

I'll try, but it won't matter.

Dr. Henry Morris presents a formula for human population.

Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, professor of physics at the University of Texas and consultant to Globe Universal Sciences points out that the earth's magnetic field was a half-life; or loses half of its strength every 1,400 years. From the magnetic field ab electric current flows through the core of the earth. It has energy and produces heat. The present energy loss is 8.13 million watts. The rate of decay is so rapid that the earth cannot be more than 15,000 years old.

Dr. Robert L. Whitlaw, professor of nuclear and mechanical engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute says that the most commonly used methods of dating objects, Uranium decay and Potassium-Argon methods are faulty and unreliable in cases where the actual age of rock formations is known from history. He said, "The scientific "proofs" formerly used to establish an immense age for the earth, including Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon and Rubidum-Strontium are showing many flaws and weaknesses, while proofs for a young age are increasing.

Dr. Maurice Dametz agrees with Dr. Henry Morris about the human population

"Analysis of Historical Data Suggest the Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, Vol. 32, September 1979

August 18, 1986 U.S. News and World Report stated that MIT's Edmond found that action of hot vents was turning te dead plankton in the sediment into petroleum-a process that normally takes at least 10 million years squeezed into an instant. Obvously, it does not take at least 10 million years to form oil.

Dr. Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at M.I.T. writes, "The time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem." This concerns the receding moon.

National Geographic, Time, and local newspapers test the Paluxy tracks in Texas. They are prints of humans and dinosaurs in the same layer of fossilized limestone. Just because this was found in the bible belt doesn't give it any less credibility. These tracks show that dinosaurs and humans walked during the same era. I have an article from the Detroit news, clear across the country about this.

Quotes from Evolutionists: Dr. D. Watson: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur...or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

L.T. More: "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone;exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion...The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.

I have articles from USA Today, New York Times, National Geographic, Physics Review, Science and Detroit Free Press. As you can see, all of my evidence comes from professors of geophysics, psysics, nuclear and mechanical engineering and none of them are creationists. I know, they're all bull crap because they found evidence against all of your beliefs, but hey, they're scienctists and professors of science. Another argument I can see coming is that some of the articles are outdated. Okay then, show me an article that is dated recently that is oppose to those ideas and I'll disregard them.

[Venomshocker]

Also, just to be clear, are you stating that creationism should be considered to be a scientific theory?

Yes, Creationism can be considered a sceintific theory. Check out :

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...=30#entry172231

Also anyone interested in Creationism Vs. Evouloution should check out the link above.

Edited May 16, 2004 by Venomshocker

[aquatus1]

Dr. Henry Morris presents a formula for human population.

Since you did not give me a specific reference, I will assume that you are referring to his article in Scientific Creationism magazine, which is, incidentaly, neither a scientific journal, nor peer-reviewed. Here is a specific refutation of both his growth formula, and population assumption mistakes, with references, from Talk Origins:

Henry Morris Population Calculation

Earth's magnetic field: Here is a specific refutation of Thomas G. Barnes lecture concerning a spherical dynamo model of the Earth:

Earth's Magnetic Field Fading

I was unable to find Robert L. Whitlaw at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute's faculty web page. Since I cannot read his research, I will simply give this source:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

Since I already gave you a source concerning population, this source will deal specifically with Maurice Dametz letter:

Maurice Dametz's Letter

The 'Young Oil' argument: Yes, oil can be made quickly. So can stalactites, crystals, and heck, I can make ice in my fridge in about 2 hours. I hope you don't think this makes the glaciers less than 24 hours old. But, again, don't take my word for it:Rapid formation of oil and coal

Here's a paper concerning not only Slichter's data, but also that of the other ICR scientists that had a hand in that particular lecture.Recession of the moon

As a change of pace, here is a link from Answers in Genesis, Creationism's Flagship webpage: You'll find references to both the Paluxy tracks, and to a few other arguments you have posted in the past. Arguments you shouldn't use.

Dr. D. Watson: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur...or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

Quote#80: Please note that this quote is from 1929, is not from a biologist, and is most definitely not complete. What he is saying is that Evolution is going to become the leading theory simply due to the lack of evidence causing creationism to collapse:Quote Mining: Out of Context quotes

The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

Quote#61, same link as above. This one is even older, from 1925. These are pretty old cources to be using for modern day arguments, don't you think?

The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone;exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion...The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.

Saucy, news journals, pop science magazines, and even National Geographic, are not scientific journals. They are entertainment magazines that, more often than not, do contain true facts, but always put a entertainment spin on it and are rarely, if ever, peer-reviewed. A scientific journal exists for the sole purpose of disseminating information to the scientific community, and an article cannot be published without a set of experts in the field reading the paper and agreeing that it does meet the criteria for scientifc methodology, regardless of how controversial it is. All the above links give full references to modern studies, which are peer-reviewed. All the authors's credentials are checked as part of the peer review process, and anybody claiming credentials that they do not have, such as Dr. Slichter, are rejected. The first tenet is in publishing is credibility. If you don't have it because you lied, you won't have anyone touch your work.

Now then, I just spent about three hours putting together these links. If you would, could you give me the answers to the studies that refuted these claims? Also, please note that the majority come from the same site. Why is this? Because every single argument that you pasted is the exact same one that has been presented by the creationist camp for DECADES. Even the quotes are so commonly, an libelously, used that they have been numbered!

Please reference any of the studies that rebukes these studies. A link would be appreciated, so that I don't have to search all over the net for it. Also, please justify misusing a quote intentionaly out of context.

[saucy]

Thanks for your hard work trying to prove me wrong. It's good for the 'ole ego. I don't know what to say. You have a point? You're right? My arguements have been successfully debunked? Well, that would be the truth. I don't have anything else. I'm all dried up; washed out. I'm truly glad that everyone here works together to try and flush someone's faith down the toilet. I will now leave with my head bowed in defeat...

[Scorpius]

I'm a little slow...

So does that mean evolution scientifically more plausible than that of creationism?

The 'Young Oil' argument: Yes, oil can be made quickly. So can stalactites, crystals, and heck, I can make ice in my fridge in about 2 hours. I hope you don't think this makes the glaciers less than 24 hours old. But, again, don't take my word for it:Rapid formation of oil and coal

Huh? I'm confused. So you contradicted yourself?

So you agree with Saucy with the Young Oil arguement?

It's possible a bit of creationism is a possible along side evolution, and not everything about it is creationism are 100% accurate.

Anything is possible, or can it?

[Stellar]

Saucy, what you use was parts of sceintific evidence found by scientists, and add a creationist twist to it.

Venom: Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. Its a religious theory at most. Do you think Genesis should be taught in science class as a theory = evolution?

[aquatus1]

Blue-Scorpion,

Yes, actually, that's exactly it. Evolution is more scientifically plausible than creationism, which is why it is currently the most highly regarded theory of species variation on the planet within the scientific community. Whether or not Creationism is a scientific theory at all is currently being debated int the Scientific Methodology thread, although the mainstream community has long ago abandoned it as a plausible theory, due to its inability to explain existing evidence.

As for the young oil argument, I am agreeing that oil, like ice, can be made quickly. This, however, does not automatically mean that all oil, and similarly, all ice, was made quickly. In other words, simply because it can be done does not mean that it was done in that manner. It is a moot argument.

As for creationism being a little coreect, I recommend you read the Scientific Methodology thread. Venomshocker is putting up a good argument, although I don't think he is referring to the Creationism that is commonly known about. His explanation might well be that "little bit correct' that you are referring to.

Saucy,

Like I told you, I don't care what you believe. What I care about is methodology. I spent many years studying science, and I spent quite a bit of time studying creationists arguments. I can explain the process by which creationist arguments came to be. I can also refute them using scientific arguments. You have not shown that capability. All you have shown, intentionally or not, is the creationist side, without any indication that you understand either the argument within it or the science behind it. Wether or not you agree with the science is actually secondary; the problem is that you have not even shown an understanding of it. I beleive that that, more than anything, is what is frustrating most of the posters here. Not that you believe in creationism, but that you believe it without understanding it.

That is why I asked you to justify the quote mining. It is one thing to not try to understand the science behind the geneology, geology, chemical, cosmological, biological due the immensity of the fields involved, but quote mining requires no technical training. It is a willful use of out of context quotes to make it seem like the person being quoted is against the ideas which he is defending. This is no longer about knowledge or data. It is about morality, and libel of character. I can understand the reluctance to undergo the years of study involved in learning the basics of science, but it takes only minutes to research a quote. Again, I ask you to justify the use of out of context quotes for creationist arguments.

[Venomshocker]

Venom: Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. Its a religious theory at most. Do you think Genesis should be taught in science class as a theory = evolution?

Creationism most definately IS a sceintific theory. Go here to see why it is:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...pic=15429&st=30

I think creationism should be taught along-side evolution in class. Both theories are viable scientifically, and until we find more 'proof' there is a possibility that either theory may be correct, because only one of them can be correct.

However, I do not propose creationism be taught from the genesis account. I propose creation should be taught form the perspective that there was a creator, period.

Its up to the student or researcher to decide, if it was the Judeo-christian God, or the Hindu God, or possibly even aliens, or 'astronauts' from other planets as Sitchin would have it.

[Seraphina]

I'm all dried up; washed out. I'm truly glad that everyone here works together to try and flush someone's faith down the toilet. I will now leave with my head bowed in defeat...

Um...correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you trying to flush OUR beliefs down the toilet when you tried to disprove evolution in favour of creationism?

In any event, I trust you're starting to realise that there is not a single peice of so called "evidence" for creationism that is not flawed, debunked, or answerable?

[Chauncy]

I think creationism should be taught along-side evolution in class

We cannot do that Venom, as much as you want to believe in a God, we cannot be that corgdial to your aspirations. In fact I feel compelled to protect our society from those aspirations.

In school we teach sciences, factual truths, and we teach people how to use these hardcore undeniable facts to hypothesize on things not yet known. All the sciences are used to uncover the truth.

We cannot tell people to aspire to unlock these mysteries , then in the same breath inform them that there is no mystery, God did it.

If you had it your way all sciences would be invalid because you just made them obsolete with a pre-supposition of God. We would then sit and do nothing as we await a second coming, all answers according to you are supplied in the belief in God......b******s!!

It is that mentality I believe has destroied civilizations and is a direct reason why we have so much mystery when it comes to origins.

Our school systems need help not hinderence Venom, and most rational minded people will never let our future be buried by such a pre-supposition.

[saucy]

Beliefs? You called them your beliefs Seraphina? I thought it was all pure, non-argumentive, 100% scientific fact! Now they're your beliefs? Besides, how much would it crush you to find out evolution didn't happen? Probably not much because many aspects of the evolution theory keeps changing so you're used to it by now.

[Fluffybunny]

It is that mentality I believe has destroied civilizations and is a direct reason why we have so much mystery when it comes to origins.

Good post Chauncy.

religion(christianity specifically) has had such a negative impact on the sciences over the past millennia that I just don't see how the religious community could dare stick their collective pushy noses into the matter.

Religion is wonderful; in a church, to those that wish to partake of it. In my opinion it does not have a place in public education. Private schools can teach whatever they want, public education paid for by the taxpayer and the state is no place for the indoctrination of any religion.

If you want to teach christian creationism, do it in a context that would be more appropriate; in a mythology class describing all of the worlds creation stories and mythologies...creationism is not science, and should not taught as such.

[Chauncy]

Thanks fluffybunny

Oh and saucy just a heads up, but you may want to take that big book from which you discern your truth, and slide it down the back of your trousers because I believe Seraphina is about to give you a spanking.(all due respect extended)

[saucy]

Wouldn't be the first time and definately won't be the last. I'm actually starting to like it!

[Venomshocker]

In school we teach sciences, factual truths, and we teach people how to use these hardcore undeniable facts to hypothesize on things not yet known. All the sciences are used to uncover the truth.

Hahaha, your pretty funny. You think the theory of evolution is an unquestionable fact?????????? Your dead wrong.

If You think the theory of gravity is an unquestionable fact???Your dead wrong again.

What is taught in school called science, is nothing more than theories. And by ruling out an intelligent designer your rulling out a theory. And then your playing favourtism!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are very few cold hard facts in sceince. Very few. Gravity is a theory, electromagnetism is a theory, evolution is a theory, and also creationism. All possible explanations must be considered before any of them are thrown out. You have no proof creationism is wrong, and therefore it should be taught in schools.

[Fluffybunny]

You have no proof creationism is wrong, and therefore it should be taught in schools.

Well then, using that bulletproof logic you have no proof that the Navajo creation story is wrong. BOBOism is as viable as any creation story. The view of reincarnation can't be proved wrong either. Neither can any of the other creation stories that have come and gone over the millennia.

Unfortuantely none of that means anything as all of the creation stories are based in mythology and not science.

In a mythology class you are welcome to teach mythology, but the christian creation story doesn't make the criteria to call itself science. In this country we have a seperation of church and state for a good reason. Christians have a tendancy to try and ride roughshod over education(thinking in general), and therefore policies have been put in place to minimize this.

Your magical story of creation does not belong in a science class. Sorry.

[Chauncy]

If You think the theory of gravity is an unquestionable fact???Your dead wrong again

Theory of gravity?

Stand on the side walk, I'll get on the roof and drop a ton of bricks. If you think its just a theory stand there, if you think its is a scientific fact.....move out of the way!

[X~File_Agent]

Chauncy, that is probably the best pic I've ever seen to try and prove a point. If this was a point system, I'd give you a Million points.

[Fluffybunny]

Stand on the side walk, I'll get on the roof and drop a ton of bricks. If you think its just a theory stand there, if you think its is a scientific fact.....move out of the way!

Well, the car was only crushed in theory.

[Venomshocker]

The effects of Gravity are really well know. As anybody can tesitify to that. But nobody really knows what gravity actually is, as in what its made up of. There are just theories.

Edited May 17, 2004 by Venomshocker