.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Undercover Hippie

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Evolutionists are in trouble here

It seems plate tectonics happen a lot faster than they imagined. They NEED it to be slow for the earth to be as old as they want.

So, they will characterize this as exceptional and not normal. I'm guessing they're wrong. Time will tell.


  • Yes I agree, I am a firm believer that that the methods used to find the age of the earth, etc. or just flawed theories of man who can never come close to understanding the ways of our Creator

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:51 PM  

  • heh, the article says, "Normally, such changes blah blah blah take a long time to occur"

    Uhh, apparently not, geniuses. Who determines what's normal or not?

    By Blogger Citizen Grim, at 1:55 PM  

  • Wow, indeed. But, hey... What about all the other hundreds of tectonics in the world? Like the one in California, for example>

    By Blogger Cristiano Dias, at 2:03 PM  

  • ever hear of the theory of punctuated equilibrium?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:39 PM  

  • Anonymous, have you ever heard of the theory of Creation?

    By Blogger DerekV, at 2:44 PM  

  • "Geophysicists have calculated that in 10 million years the East African Rift System will be as large as the Red Sea."

    Think 10 million years do not pose a problem for the age of the Earth. Of course, in geological scale 10 million years is almost nothing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:10 PM  

  • Seeing as the this new ocean won’t materialize for another ten million years, I’d say this poses more of a problem for the philosophy of creation – particularly the Biblical literalists who believe in the Young Earth – than it does for the theory of evolution.

    Even if this event poses a challenge to current estimates about the age of the Earth, it doesn’t at all affect the claim that the world map has evolved into its current configuration over many millions of years.

    Sorry. Please try again.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:45 PM  

  • derekv, creation is a philosophy not a theory. Go back to elementary school and get your definitions right.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:55 PM  

  • theory = "a general principle that explains or predicts facts or events"

    From here, which is a 6th grade vocabulary list. Is that far back enough to get my definitions right?

    Please explain to me how "God created everything in 6 days" not predict the facts or events of creation. You may think its not a valid theory. Fine. I don't think evolution is a valid theory. But, according to the definition, its still a theory, as is evolution.

    Also, by the same logic, I could call evolution a philosophy too.

    By Blogger DerekV, at 4:13 PM  

  • I take the title of your post to mean that "old earthers" vice creationists. In either case it doesn't matter. If the earth is 6000 years old or 6 billion, it doesn't matter - God is still God and He still created it all. Why are you majoring in the minors? Stop quibbling about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and go reach a lost and dying world with the Gospel.

    By Blogger Steve, at 4:19 PM  

  • Because, Steve, the veracity of God's word is at stake. The serpent started off by asked, "Has God said...?"

    And it clearly says "Evening and morning were one day." Am I counting angels, or defending truth?

    What God says is fundamental to me.

    By Blogger DerekV, at 4:22 PM  

  • This is an interesting science story. Your deity is still a fairy tale however.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:13 PM  

  • the•o•ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
    n. pl. the•o•ries

    A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

    I got that definition from the American Heritage Dictionary, but I can see where you would think a grade six vocabulary list is more definitive.

    Your belief: that the Earth is six thousand years old.

    Your evidence: a religious text.

    Evidence that we, and the planet we inhabit, evolved over millions of years: Over a century of scientific observation and study using increasingly accurate tools for measuring geological age, and for determining how earlier forms of life are related to later ones.

    The theory of evolution is open to scientific debate, and can be changed to fit the facts presented by new evidence. The philosophy of Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, is not based on geological evidence or information obtained through the fossil record. It rests exclusively on religious beliefs that can neither be proved nor disproved.

    Believers cannot use creationism to predict the course of future natural events based upon observations about the character of similar events in the past. And they blame Satan, rather than crediting reason, whenever someone challenges the flaws in the Young Earth claim.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:09 AM  

  • Quite frankly I'm getting bored with the topic. But, before I start ignoring this thread I'd just like one person to explain one thing to me. I asked this of my 10 year old and he understands it instinctively.

    If I stack a pile of bricks up in a column neatly and walk away for 100 years, when I return will they be stacked neatly?

    If I stack a pile of bricks up in a jagged column and walk away for 100 years, when I return will they be stacked neatly?

    That's a pile of bricks. Yet you expect me to believe that out of the billions of living creatures on this planet, that we got to this point by the same mechanism that wouldn't work on bricks. Stop telling me I'm believing in fairy tales when you believe in that.

    By Blogger DerekV, at 8:35 AM  

  • Wow Derek. You have just figured out, all by yourself (well... and your 10-year-old-kid) the difference between a living thing and a non-living thing! Congrats!

    So let me ask you another question? If you are sick and your doctor prescribes antibiotics. Do you stop the treatment half-way? No, of course not. Because you know the "sickness" will become more resistant to the medicine and next time you get sick you will need stronger medicine, that might not even exist.

    That's called evolution. The same evolution you are thrying to say doesn't exist. Microorganisms evolve. The "weaker" die from the medicine. The "stronger" survive and pass its resistance to medicine to its offspring.

    And we are talking about bacteria, not rocks, mind you. Rocks will still be there.

    So... why bother taking the medicine in the first place? Just pray.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:30 AM  

  • Okay, I'll keep playing the game. (But, if you'll notice I'm not degenerating to ad hominem attacks in discussing this)

    You are effectively saying that the Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to inanimate objects. Correct?

    Why? What is the essential difference between inanimate and animate objects? I'd say a little thing called life. But if you're an evolutionist, you'll have a pretty hard time defining that difference. Because ultimately there is no difference according to your side.

    By Blogger DerekV, at 11:51 AM  

  • All I am saying is that a rock is not alive so, no, it won't move. You are saying that since rocks cannot form a pile "by themselves" in 100 years evolution is proven wrong.


    So I have answered your questions: no, rocks won't form a pile or whatever. They will be rocks in 100 years and in 1 million years. Keep going, what's your point?

    And when did I attack you and not your ideas? All I know about you are your ideas.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:11 PM  

  • You've completely missed my point.

    The bricks will LOSE their complexity which was imposed on them by ME!

    That's the second law of Thermodynamics. The universe abhors gradients. Everything moves toward equilibrium.

    So, if that is true for bricks, then explain to me how, if things move away from complexity, that some primordial ooze could introduce complexity, thus creating life.

    The stack of bricks analogy was my attempt to show you that if it won't even work on bricks, how could you possibly hope to create life that way.

    My ad hominem comment may have been an overeaction to what I sensed was an insulting tone in your reply. Sorry. I'm a big boy. I can take it.

    By Blogger DerekV, at 12:37 PM  

  • There are, maybe, 200 things we are discussing at the same time here. One would be the age of the Universe (not Earth, the Universe). Another other is "how was life created?". Another "how has life evolved from tiny little thing to huge living things like us and whales".

    God may be in all of them, neither of them, some of them...

    Plus, as you've replied to Steve, the question is not even about God only. It is about the Bible, God's word.

    So, the rock question... "how was life created?" Doesn't really matter here. Something did, otherwise we wouldn't be typing here.

    So let's agree on the question, because otherwise this comment boxes will explode. The question here is "how long ago did that happen"? Because even if God did it 100 billion years ago the Bible is still wrong, isn't it?

    (actually the question is "how long ago was the Universe created?", life or not)

    How long ago was the Sun created? The Moon? Mars... Alpha Centauri... Let's ignore life for a moment...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:46 PM  

  • The issue for me is that I believe in Creation, and you believe in Evolution. I posted the article to show that Evolution has "yet another" problem it must deal with.

    You still haven't explained how things go from inanimate matter (which even according to you must obey the rules of thermodynamics) to a complexity which is required for life.

    Correct me if that isn't a seminal (pardon the pun) issue of origins. How does life begin? Its fine to say that entropy only applies to the inanimate. But you've only abstracted the problem down one layer. Now you have the problem of how does evolution make the jump from inanimate to animate without someone or something introducing complexity.

    But, you want to change the subject, I suppose because you can see where this leads. That's fine too.

    I said before, that I'm getting bored with the thread. But thanks for playing.

    By Blogger DerekV, at 12:58 PM  

  • Well, I thought the initial point was that tecnotic plates might move faster than originally thought and that the age of the Earth might be different. Not 6000 years, of course, but a couple million years of.

    That, for you, was trouble for evolutionists. I don't see how, since these are separate matters. Even if it is found out that the Earth surface moves way faster than initially thought evolution is still there. Natural selection, etc. is still valid with a planet (way) older that 6000 years.

    I may be wrong here (I don't pretend to know everything) but evolution deals with what happened after the first life form was created. How it got to us and all other life forms. Other theories will deal with creation of life itself. Maybe not, but I am saying this because some people still beleive in God plus evolution, simply because they think evolution is just God's rule for living beings. Like gravity. You need SOME rule.

    Trying to answer your question... Just last week I read that some scientists are studying the idea that life came from viruses, that are in the gray "almost-life" zone. First "we" were molecules that could replicate, but then things got a little bit more complex and natural selection started. Slowly. Veeeery slowly.

    We know that microorganisms evolve based on their surroundings because, among many other things, of the antibiotic story I told. (And you ignored as ad-hominem. But you still take the medicine, don't you?)

    Tomorrow I am moving so, yes, this might be the end of this talk. I never hoped to convince you of anything, specially after reading the rest of your blog. (I got here through Technorati)

    So this is the end. Unless, of course, someone takes the role of Anonymous. After all it was not me that wrote the first comments, as you might have noticed already.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home