• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?

Right Divider

Body part
Nonsense.

From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.
"demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures"

Utter nonsense.

The human body, as an example, is a complex and HIGHLY INTEGRATED system. Genetic mistakes cannot build such a thing. To say that they can is anti-science.

Also note that mutations that confer antibiotic resistance can be caused by a LOSS of function in receptors. So what appears to be a "new" thing is actually a loss of functionality.
 
Last edited:

marke

Well-known member
Nonsense.

From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.
There is a serious lack of specificity in many aspects of evolutionary theories, speculations, and assumptions, such as how did the genome create itself or what intelligent or accidental force caused its origin?


Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA? It is interesting to note that, in all of the selective breeding in dogs, there has been no change to the basic dog genome. All breeds of dog can still mate with one another. People have not seen any increase in dog's DNA, but have simply selected different genes from the existing dog gene pool to create the different breeds.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Evolution is common ground for those who hate God, and since most of the world rejects Him, why would any of those scientists be fired if it promotes rejection of God? Remember, misery loves company. Those who reject God are (generally speaking) far more miserable than those who love Him. Thus, those who promote evolution, to the extent that they hate God, work together to do so, even and especially if it means rejecting what is true.
No one, repeat no one, who is not otherwise already committed to the YEC position, would believe this.

Using this line of reasoning, you can defend any absurd position, no matter the evidence that the real world throws your way.

Suppose scripture said the moon was made of green cheese. If scripture was correct on this matter, and if I adopted your line of reasoning, I could argue that the Apollo astronauts "reject God" and, upon discovering that the moon really is made of green cheese, they are now participating in a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.

It is beyond plausibility to imagine that tens of thousands of trained experts are all engaged in such a conspiracy. Even if, repeat even if, they all "hate God", they surely would not go so far as to invest thousands of hours of study and work to prop up such a conspiracy.
 

marke

Well-known member
No one, repeat no one, who is not otherwise already committed to the YEC position, would believe this.

Using this line of reasoning, you can defend any absurd position, no matter the evidence that the real world throws your way.

Suppose scripture said the moon was made of green cheese. If scripture was correct on this matter, and if I adopted your line of reasoning, I could argue that the Apollo astronauts "reject God" and, upon discovering that the moon really is made of green cheese, they are now participating in a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.

It is beyond plausibility to imagine that tens of thousands of trained experts are all engaged in such a conspiracy. Even if, repeat even if, they all "hate God", they surely would not go so far as to invest thousands of hours of study and work to prop up such a conspiracy.
There are tens of thousands of experts who have been taught wrong information who are now teaching others that same wrong information.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
No one, repeat no one,

Repeating yourself doesn't make you any less incorrect.

who is not otherwise already committed to the YEC position, would believe this.

Because you say so?

Using this line of reasoning, you can defend any absurd position, no matter the evidence that the real world throws your way.

No, you can't.

Suppose scripture said the moon was made of green cheese. If scripture was correct on this matter, and if I adopted your line of reasoning, I could argue that the Apollo astronauts "reject God" and, upon discovering that the moon really is made of green cheese, they are now participating in a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.

If scripture said the moon was made of cheese, and we went up and found that it was not, in fact, made of cheese, then scripture would be shown to be wrong.

If it WAS made of green cheese, and the men who went to the moon denied that it was made of cheese, despite having clear evidence that it WAS so, even bringing back cheese from the moon, then you could argue that they're idiots, and perhaps if they covered up the fact that they brought back cheese, then you can call it a conspiracy, but scripture would still be vindicated.

Such is the case with evolution. We keep finding more and more evidence that supports the YEC position, particularly the HPT, yet people are still in denial, so much so that the only rational explanation is hatred of God and everything to do with Him.

It is beyond plausibility to imagine that tens of thousands of trained experts are all engaged in such a conspiracy.

There you go with your appeal to popularity, with an added argument from incredulity. Just because you can't imagine it being true doesn't mean it can't be true.

Even if, repeat even if,

What are you, Foghorn Leghorn? Knock it off.

they all "hate God", they surely would not go so far as to invest thousands of hours of study and work to prop up such a conspiracy.

Because you say so?
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
The human body, as an example, is a complex and HIGHLY INTEGRATED system. Genetic mistakes cannot build such a thing. To say that it can is anti-science.
How? How do you know that genetic mistakes cannot result in such a thing.

You are asking us to believe you - and I suspect that, like me, you are not an expert - over Scientific American, a high-reputable science publication?
 

Right Divider

Body part
How? How do you know that genetic mistakes cannot result in such a thing.
Because there is TONS of scientific evidence against the idea.
Mistakes are not a creative force. That should be self-evident. But you seem to be a "true believer".
You are asking us to believe you - and I suspect that, like me, you are not an expert - over Scientific American, a high-reputable science publication?
No, I'm asking you to believe true science and not what some people believe.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
How? How do you know that genetic mistakes cannot result in such a thing.

You are asking us to believe you - and I suspect that, like me, you are not an expert - over Scientific American, a high-reputable science publication?
Just a survey of introductory college level textbooks is sufficient to establish what an entire discipline's authentic experts think on any matter, you can at least see where there is uniformity and where the field is 'split'. Wherever they're in uniform agreement you can appeal to that authority validly.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
There is no "valid appeal to authority" when is comes to logical arguments and especially regarding scientific truth.

Scientific truth is NOT determined by the beliefs of a majority (not even if it's 100%).
It's not determined by wannabe scientists / junk science consumers - that's for sure.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
You're free to talk science facts here or you can just continue to be a wannabe scientist / junk science consumer.
What would be the point? You just respond: "your dreaming" "not true" or other mantras instead of explaining why the evidence shown is weak. You are mostly a waste of time.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
No, there isn't.
Yes there is.
Truth is not determined by majorities or authorities.
Whoever said it was? Not me. But if all the world's authorities in a discipline all agree on any matter in their own discipline, then there is a valid appeal to authority possible.
Duh... which, again, is not determined by who believes it, how many believe, what those that believe its credentials are, etc. etc. etc.
Truth stands on its own.
 
Top