God created light an darkness on the first day. Genesis 1:5 says the evening and the morning were the first day. There is NOTHING in this passage to say that this is referring to it taking God telling moses all of this in one day. God doesn't need to rest in the same way we do. I always took it to mean that He sat back and enjoyed His creation.
That fails to explain (1) Dinosaur footprints on some of the layers. The flood took 40 days and nights, right? Well, there was a lot more walking on the sands than 40 days and nights would allow. In addition, there is no evidence of trapped water in most of the layers in that area, and there are also periods of organic development. It can be shown that most of the layers of sands were deposited in a dry climate, not a soaking wet one. In addition, the entire structure of the sand layers in Utah and Arizona is counter to an overwhelming flood. (The Paradox layer, composed of salt, is one.) I argue that the sands got there after any great flooding.
You may be right. All I gave is one explanation. Your view on this doesn't prove evolution. I was giving an explanation to prove that the grand canyon probably wasn't formed over millions of years by the Colorodo river.
You are completely ignoring newer observations of the moon. I suppose you don't know that the moon has a very extremely thin atmosphere, do you? It does, and it's composed of lunar dust that gets kicked up from rocks pelting the surface. Some of that dust escapes into space. Larger inpacts have happened that were perfectly capable of ejecting LOTS of material into space.
You also ignore the fact that the moon has had great lava flows, before it finished cooling, and that would, of course, have covered up previous layers of dust.
There is no evidence using the scientific method to prove that the moon had volcanic activity. Like you said it's merely an observation. If there were no volcanoes, then my statement is still basically accurate.
Nobody has ever suggested that Saturn's rings must be billions of years old. All it would take is for the right comet/asteroid/whatever getting stuck there and being crushed by tidal forces I agree, I believe it was an astroid that caused it, however the reason that point was brought up is because some scientists have believed this.
Conveniently leaving out the idea that the stars clusters aren't necessarily that old. I agree I never said they were old.
Not if the core is composed of fissionable materials. You are not paying kind to modern theories. I admit I don't know much in this area.
How long did it take to make the cave? Don't forget eartquakes. Also, the same process that makes stalactites can easily take them away when more water goes through them. Many caves don't have stalactite/stalagmite structures at all.
I agree. However there are geologists who have said that it would take a very long time for stalagtites and stalagmites to form.
There is also evidence that this is cyclical and related to climate cycling and oceanic conveyors. This could be. Right now there are only opinions about the ocean's saltiness nothing has been proven one way or the other.
If it never melted in the meantime, and if deposit rates were consistent, and if the material of the airplane didn't tend to absorb more solar heat and therefore melt the ice around it and sink. Let me explain it further. If you go to those areas and dig in the ice you see layers. It's obvious. You are correct that solar heat and tempurature variations affect the ice. The cold/hot cycles cause the layers you see. Up until recent times it was thought that the ice layers were seasonal and accurate for how long they existed. All the layers prove is that they are caused by hot/cold cycles and not reliable as a dating method.
If people always reproduced at their current (alarming) rate, and there were no war or plague. We only accuratly know the history of war/plague/disease, etc. for about 2500 years. Before that all we have are a few writings. Not enough to say how it affected the population.
Not necessarily correct. In addition, you forget that Homo spp. existed without keeping records before then, and many modern-era cultures still hadn't developed written communications on their own when Columbus stubled on America. We can't accuratly date the history of human culture beyond a few thousand years. Nothing exists any longer with enough information other than educated guesswork.
Thanks for the suggestions. I have read much on evolution and always looking to learn more. I'm still a young-earth Creationists, but I consider others ideas and opinions. You suggested getting a bio-chem degree. I already thought of getting a degree along those lines because eventually I would like to go to medical school.
The notion that a meaningful distinction can be drawn between "macro" and "micro" evolution has pretty much fallen by the wayside now that we are able to read the actual genetic codes of organisms, and we know for certain that differences between species are just an accumulation the same kinds of mutational variations that are observed within a population. I agree that micro and macro have fallen by the wayside, however there still is no proof that the advanced animals of today evolved from single celled organisms which some evolutionists believe. That was the point I was trying to make.
Today, the notion of "macroevolution" is preserved by Creationists, who use it as a fallback, each time evolution of a species is demonstrated in nature or in the lab, insisting, "OK, you can get that much evolution, but no more--anything bigger has to be done by God!" I agree, the term macro and micro evolution is not a good way to describe any type of evolution. each time evolution of a species is demonstrated in nature or in the lab I have no problem with creatures adapting to their enviroment. They can get new information from natural or artifical (laboratory) breeding, or from their genetics (like the famous finches). However, it still doesn't prove that a single cell organism can eventually by chance evolve into the animals and people we have today. Micheal Behe's book Darwins Black Books points out many problems with genetic evolution.
Another problem is the creation of new species. New species come about from time to time. I don't think this proves evolution. I am a Christian, the type that believes God created everything to reproduce after it's own kind. Kind as defined in the Bible is different than species. Animals closely related using the species method of sibling species, subspecies and semispecies can often produce new ones by changing their enviroment such as the 2 best examples like the finches and mice that were moved to different enviroments and changed. The finches had changes in beak sizes. The mice (or rats or whatever type of rodent) actually became a new species. I don't have a problem with that because is still in the main category of rodent (or whatever catagory it was in). Animals from the same or related species can often interbreed naturally or sometimes with modifications in a lab. However the Bible's description of Kind is referring to species that can't interbreed naturally - monkey's can't breed with lizards and birds can't breed with cows. I see no experiments or proof where a new KIND was made by evolution Different Kinds can't interbreed.
Universe Is Not "Billions of Years" Old The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. (Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are not disputing simple variations that some call "microevolution," whose micro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false:
1. the universe is billions of years old,
2. life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals,
3. mutations create or improve a species,
4. natural selection has creative power.
In this section we will deal with the first of these assumptions. The others will be dealt with elsewhere. If, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the universe is not billions of years old, all other arguments about evolution become meaningless and unnecessary.
In children's fairy tales, we are told: frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince
In modern "science" textbooks we are told: frog + time = prince
The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.
In nearly all discussions and debates about evolution that I have held at universities and colleges, I ask the evolutionists how certain things could have evolved by chance. Their answer is nearly always "Given enough time..." Time is the evolutionists' god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.
But let's remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:
1. Evolution becomes obviously impossible.
2. Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.
3. Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.
Let's imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years.
"That's impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!"
"How can you prove I'm wrong?" I say.
"Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say.
"Okay," I admit, "you're right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!"
"No!" you say. "Casio didn't make the Databank watch until twelve years ago."
"All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then."
"Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and it's still running. That proves it has been here less than five years."
While we still can't prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.
The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days. Then, approximately 4400 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a worldwide Flood. This devastating, year-long Flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Gen. 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumption--that today's slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been--is faulty logic, and ignores catastrophes like the Flood. (2 Pet. 3:3-8 says that the scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood.)
Listed below are some of the factors from various branches of science that limit the age of the universe (including earth) to within the last few thousand years. Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, its age can be shown to not be billions of years old. Each of the following evidences of a young earth is described in great detail in the books referenced below. Source number and page number are given for the following statements (at the bottom of this page):
Evidence from Space
The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. (1, p. 169; 2, p. 30; 4, pp. 56-63; 5, p. 26; 6, p. 43;)
The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)
"I get a picture therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice, level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first, and sinking majestically out of sight." -- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, January, 1959, p 36
Lyttleton felt that the X-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rocks "could, during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep." -- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, vol. 115, pp. 585-604
The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old. (2, p. 31; 3, p. 27; 4, p. 35; 6, p. 37; 7)
Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. (4, p. 26)
The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents. (3, p. 25; 6, p. 43; 7)
The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. (8, p. 177; see also 4, p. 51, for information on rock "flow")
The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. (3, p. 29; 6, p.44)
At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years. (3, p. 29; 4, pp. 30 and 59; 6, p. 44)
Saturn's rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old. (4, p. 45)
Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. (5, p. 26; 4, p. 43; Jupiter's moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old. (4, p. 3)
Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star--today it is a white dwarf star. Since today's textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.
Evidence from Earth
The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than billions. (1, p. 157; 2, p. 27; 3, p. 20; 5, p. 23; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 10, p. 38)
The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly. (1, p. 156)
Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation. (1, p. 153; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 42)
The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) (1, p. 151; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25)
The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils. (2, p. 31; 6, p 38; American Science Vol 56 p 356-374)
Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation. (6, p. 38)
Niagara Falls' erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7)
The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years. (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 37; 7)
The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) (3, p. 23; 6, p. 38; 7)
The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution. (3, p. 25; 7)
A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution. (1, p. 155; 6, p. 28; 7)
The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years. (5, p. 27; 6, p. 39; 7)
The Sahara desert is expanding. It easily could have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.
The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now. (7; 9, p. 26; 10, p. 37)
Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years. (7)
Evidence from Biology
The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years. (1, p. 167; 3, p. 27; 6, p. 41; 7)
The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. (6, p. 39; 7)
The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old. (6, p. 40; 7)
Another factor to consider: The genetic load in man is increasing. Geneticists have cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hand of the Creator but has been going downhill as a result of our disobedience to the laws established by the Creator and the increased radiation from the sun. The Bible teaches that we live in a sin-cursed world as a result of Adam's sin.
Evidence from History
The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old. (1, p. 160)
Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known.
Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.
The following Bible verses tell when "the beginning" was:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1) Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Mt. 19:8) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mk. 10:6) In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (Jn. 1:1) That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. (1 Jn. 1:1) He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 Jn. 3:8) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time. (Mt. 24:21) Ye are of your father the devil.... He was a murderer from the beginning. (Jn. 8:44) That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel. (Lk. 11:50, 51) And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth. (Heb. 1:10) For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is. (Ex. 20:11) Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Pet. 3:4) The works were finished from the foundation of the world. For God did rest the seventh day from all his works. (Heb. 4:3, 4) For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created to this time. (Mk. 13:19) Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? (Is. 40:21) Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord am he. (Is. 41:4) Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? (Mt. 19:4) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. (Ro. 1:20) Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one or two of these evidences and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong. This is not logical, of course. Each evidence stands independently: it only takes one to prove the earth is young. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists if they expect all taxpayers to fund the teaching of their religion in the school system. Many who believe in evolution are great at "straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel" (Mt. 23:24).
Evolutionists love to assume uniformitarian processes. Many of the preceding evidences follow the same logic evolutionists use all the time in dealing with carbon dating, strata formation, genetic drift, etc.
It is interesting to read the ramblings of nay-sayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to answer theses evidences for a young universe. See how many times they use words like: we believe, perhaps, could have, there is some reason to believe, etc. Evolutionists may need billions of years to make people believe a rock can turn into a rocket scientist, but that time just isn't available.
Sources
1. Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, April 1985.
2. McLean, G. S.; McLean, Larry; Oakland, Roger. The Bible Key to Understanding the Early Earth. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Southwest Radio Church, 1987.
3. Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983.
4. Ackerman, Paul D. It's a Young World After All. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1986.
5. Blick, Edward F. A Scientific Analysis of Genesis. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Hearthstone Publ. Ltd., 1991.
6. Petersen, Dennis R. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. South Lake Tahoe, Calif.: Christian Equippers International, 1987.
7. Hovind, Kent E. Creation Seminar, Parts 1-7 (most items referenced onscreen--available from Creation Science Evangelism, 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, Fla. 32503).
8. Wysong, R. L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. Midland, Mich.: Inquiry Press, 1976.
9. Baker, Sylvia. Bone of Contention. Creation Science Foundation Ltd., Sunnybank, Queensland 4109 Australia: 1990.
10. Moore, John N. Questions and Answers on Creation-Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977.
My mistake.My argument has nothing to do with inaccuracies in the bible (or accuracies).
Therefore, I will never debate the scientific accuracy or inaccuracy of the bible as it is irrelevant to the debate over teaching creationism. I shouldn't have lowered myself, even momentarily, to the provocation.
Fine. Thanks for clearing it up. I thought one of your main points were inacurracies in the Bible.
Again, creationists are only interested in evolution to the extent that they believe that evolution challenges their view of a particular religiously based morality. Otherwise they wouldn't expend such an extraordinary amount of energy on it.
Again, evolution implies nothing whatsoever about a religious belief or a system of morals. Except, of course, to a small minority of self-styled "christians" who push a very particular, and very ugly, moral agenda, many details of which are at odds with mainstream judeo/christian worship and theology.
Again you are correct many creationists strongly defend their position because evolution would mean they are wrong. I believe young earth creation from a scientific viewpoint. I personally like the Hovind Theory for Creation. See www.drdino.com and the online seminar for more information. I cannot for space and time explain here why I believe from a scientific viewpoint that young earth creation is the right way. I don't have all the answers for the position because I wasn't there when God created the universe much like evolutionists weren't around to watch the varying viewpoints on evolution.
By the way what is "mainstream" Christianity? That's a very vague term.
Macro evolution as described in the big bang theory ? That's so wrong that the word 'wrong' seems insufficient. You need to do a lot of learning and thinking, not discussing, right now.
Many people and scientist (especially if they are strong atheists) believe macro evolution and life started with the big bang. I was replying to them. There are so many views on evolution even in this discussion that it would take 100 pages of posts for me to hit them all. I know there are many ideas/theories/opinions on evolution. The same is true for creation. Please don't take me as someone who is ignorant. I have read many books on evolution and creation. I understand although I don't agree with evolution, no matter which view you hold.
There are many serious theological implicatons if evolution is correct, that is why man Christians don't want to believe in evolution. Even though I am a seven day young earth creations, I always consider the other side. In order for me to accuratly defend what I believe, I have to.
Someone needs to stop getting all of their science information from Jerry Falwell.... I'm not. Many atheistic evolutionists don't want to believe in God, even a god using evolution. So they apply macro evolution to the big bang.
The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the origin of life. then where does life come from? Many evolutions believe that life came as a result of the big bang. That's what is passed about as the origin of life by many evolutionists. Your opinion on the origin of life and evolution differs with many other people's views.
"Macro" and "micro" evolution are artificial labels and are practically meaningless.
Artifical or not, the classic example of "macro" evolution is speciation, which we have watched happen in the wild and in the lab
micro evolution still does not prove macro, even in the lab. The change of the finches (the most popular example) does not prove that life became more complex from single cell to the animals, plants, and people we have today.
What you asked for was proof of the fact of evolution. The term "evolution" just means that the genetic characteristics of a population change over time. This is easily demonstrated -- witness drug resistance diseases. Therefore, evolution is a fact, QED.
That does not prove that things are getting more complex and changing into new kinds (ie from single cell to multi cell to some type of fish to some type of land animal to some type of monkey to some type of human.)
...There are so many errors of science in the bible that finding one statement that is by happenstance scientifically correct (there are certainly more) means little...
Give me one instance of errors of science in the Bible, and I'll explain it to you and show you it's not.
That still doesn't prove Macro evolution like in the big bang theory which states single cell organisms gradually increase in complexity until they become something like the people, animals and plants that we have today.
I think the two are different and one does not prove the other.
Macro evolution as described in the big bang theory says simple cell or single cell organisms evolved gradually over billions of years into the animals and people we have today.
Micro evolution is like the finches that are so often discussed. They were move from one part of the world to some island. Their beaks changed shapes and there were other changes. Another type is the mice that were moved that they say have developed into a "different species".
I have no problem with micro evolution. Animals (and probably people) will change biologically to some extent if given the proper conditions. This is no proof for macro evolution. The finches are still birds and the mice are still mice. Since they are not breeding with a large a gene pool as before, they change over time. They will have LESS genetic information. Which is a loss (duh). Macro evolution states things go from least complex to more complex. Single cell to animals we have today. It can't be proven that the changes in the finces prove this aspect of Macro evolutoin.
Mammoths are being cloned because they are abundant. They have found many completely frozen. Some were frozen so quickly that the food in their mouths and stomachs are indentifiable. This makes the DNA easy to get from the blood, muscle, or whatever tissue they will use. With Sabre Tooths, all we have are fossilized skeletons where the DNA has been replaced by stone so we probably won't get any of them through cloning.
Diamonds are not scarce. The only reason they're considered valuable is because the diamond / jewelry companies have conviced people that diamonds are rare should be kept. Diamonds are actually quite abundant. If people treated them as such, the prices would drop dramatically and make them more affordable.
One of my friends when working on his master's in computer science used a nintendo glove connect to a computer for a project. He wrote code that interfaced to a VRML program that allowed him to move objects in the program instead of using a mouse or keyboard. I see something like this being used in CAD type applications. A user puts it on and moves & rotates objects to view them in other positions. It would be a much more natural way to do it than a joystick, keyboard or mouse.
Repetitive reading phonics drills is how many students learn to read at a young level (4 to 7 years old). They go down a chart and repeat the sound made for letter combinations (ie PH says 'F', ing, tion and the like). I was in a church school that used this method to teach me to read. This might help you learn to recognize letter combinations with their sounds. (I realize you can already read). The school I had used the A Beka ciriculum which has one of best phonics programs around. Their website is www.abeka.com
Actually this is now new. There were many varying measurements to the speed of light until the invention of the atomic clock. Time in testing it was done comparing it to an atomic clock. Since atomic decay is losing of energy and energy is related to the speed of light, it wasn't noticed in recent years because the atomic decay is proportionate to the speed of light.
Open Source Projects can be sold. However, you must include the source code. You can still have a regular copyright on content. An example would be the Quake engine. Id released the source code. You can develop a game with it and change the source. You can then sell the game all you want. You must release the source you used/changed for the game. However, you can still copyright the graphics, music, and content and prevent others from using it in a commericial product. Open Source does not mean free software as in money, but free access to the source code to the software.
Did you check the prices on those? They run $10,000 or more. For that you can find a digital camera that does what he needs. I believe he's looking for something a little more reasonable in price.
It's interesting to see that a big corporation that most enviromentalists love to loathe is actually doing something that won't pollute the enviroment. These new automobiles won't pollute like the current crop of autos do. I have yet to see one enviromental group actually do something constructive that allows people to retain their current standard of living. Instead most of them SEEM to want everyone to live in mud huts and walk everywhere.
*please don't mark this as flaimbait or off topic it's not meant to be. I just see most enviromentalists groups as a bunch of socialist or communist pigs who want to destroy capitalism*
What does this have to do with our conversation? Absolutely nothing, just like your "point".
My point was meant to deal with the parent post I responded to. If you had read the ENTIRE line of posts where I had made that comment, you would have seen that the parent post said that our founding fathers weren't christians and gave some internet links to "prove" his points. I was merely responding to him because I believe him to be wrong and gave a link supporting my position.
Slashdot Mirror
God created light an darkness on the first day. Genesis 1:5 says the evening and the morning were the first day. There is NOTHING in this passage to say that this is referring to it taking God telling moses all of this in one day. God doesn't need to rest in the same way we do. I always took it to mean that He sat back and enjoyed His creation.
That fails to explain (1) Dinosaur footprints on some of the layers. The flood took 40 days and nights, right? Well, there was a lot more walking on the sands than 40 days and nights would allow. In addition, there is no evidence of trapped water in most of the layers in that area, and there are also periods of organic development. It can be shown that most of the layers of sands were deposited in a dry climate, not a soaking wet one. In addition, the entire structure of the sand layers in Utah and Arizona is counter to an overwhelming flood. (The Paradox layer, composed of salt, is one.) I argue that the sands got there after any great flooding.
You may be right. All I gave is one explanation. Your view on this doesn't prove evolution. I was giving an explanation to prove that the grand canyon probably wasn't formed over millions of years by the Colorodo river.
You are completely ignoring newer observations of the moon. I suppose you don't know that the moon has a very extremely thin atmosphere, do you? It does, and it's composed of lunar dust that gets kicked up from rocks pelting the surface. Some of that dust escapes into space. Larger inpacts have happened that were perfectly capable of ejecting LOTS of material into space.
You also ignore the fact that the moon has had great lava flows, before it finished cooling, and that would, of course, have covered up previous layers of dust.
There is no evidence using the scientific method to prove that the moon had volcanic activity. Like you said it's merely an observation. If there were no volcanoes, then my statement is still basically accurate.
Nobody has ever suggested that Saturn's rings must be billions of years old. All it would take is for the right comet/asteroid/whatever getting stuck there and being crushed by tidal forces
I agree, I believe it was an astroid that caused it, however the reason that point was brought up is because some scientists have believed this.
Conveniently leaving out the idea that the stars clusters aren't necessarily that old.
I agree I never said they were old.
Not if the core is composed of fissionable materials. You are not paying kind to modern theories.
I admit I don't know much in this area.
How long did it take to make the cave? Don't forget eartquakes. Also, the same process that makes stalactites can easily take them away when more water goes through them. Many caves don't have stalactite/stalagmite structures at all.
I agree. However there are geologists who have said that it would take a very long time for stalagtites and stalagmites to form.
There is also evidence that this is cyclical and related to climate cycling and oceanic conveyors.
This could be. Right now there are only opinions about the ocean's saltiness nothing has been proven one way or the other.
If it never melted in the meantime, and if deposit rates were consistent, and if the material of the airplane didn't tend to absorb more solar heat and therefore melt the ice around it and sink.
Let me explain it further. If you go to those areas and dig in the ice you see layers. It's obvious. You are correct that solar heat and tempurature variations affect the ice. The cold/hot cycles cause the layers you see. Up until recent times it was thought that the ice layers were seasonal and accurate for how long they existed. All the layers prove is that they are caused by hot/cold cycles and not reliable as a dating method.
If people always reproduced at their current (alarming) rate, and there were no war or plague.
We only accuratly know the history of war/plague/disease, etc. for about 2500 years. Before that all we have are a few writings. Not enough to say how it affected the population.
Not necessarily correct. In addition, you forget that Homo spp. existed without keeping records before then, and many modern-era cultures still hadn't developed written communications on their own when Columbus stubled on America.
We can't accuratly date the history of human culture beyond a few thousand years. Nothing exists any longer with enough information other than educated guesswork.
Thanks for the suggestions. I have read much on evolution and always looking to learn more. I'm still a young-earth Creationists, but I consider others ideas and opinions. You suggested getting a bio-chem degree. I already thought of getting a degree along those lines because eventually I would like to go to medical school.
I agree that micro and macro have fallen by the wayside, however there still is no proof that the advanced animals of today evolved from single celled organisms which some evolutionists believe. That was the point I was trying to make.
Today, the notion of "macroevolution" is preserved by Creationists, who use it as a fallback, each time evolution of a species is demonstrated in nature or in the lab, insisting, "OK, you can get that much evolution, but no more--anything bigger has to be done by God!"
I agree, the term macro and micro evolution is not a good way to describe any type of evolution.
each time evolution of a species is demonstrated in nature or in the lab
I have no problem with creatures adapting to their enviroment. They can get new information from natural or artifical (laboratory) breeding, or from their genetics (like the famous finches). However, it still doesn't prove that a single cell organism can eventually by chance evolve into the animals and people we have today. Micheal Behe's book Darwins Black Books points out many problems with genetic evolution.
Another problem is the creation of new species. New species come about from time to time. I don't think this proves evolution. I am a Christian, the type that believes God created everything to reproduce after it's own kind. Kind as defined in the Bible is different than species. Animals closely related using the species method of sibling species, subspecies and semispecies can often produce new ones by changing their enviroment such as the 2 best examples like the finches and mice that were moved to different enviroments and changed. The finches had changes in beak sizes. The mice (or rats or whatever type of rodent) actually became a new species. I don't have a problem with that because is still in the main category of rodent (or whatever catagory it was in). Animals from the same or related species can often interbreed naturally or sometimes with modifications in a lab. However the Bible's description of Kind is referring to species that can't interbreed naturally - monkey's can't breed with lizards and birds can't breed with cows. I see no experiments or proof where a new KIND was made by evolution Different Kinds can't interbreed.
Granted, I'll leave the two separate for now. So I can do some research, how do you believe life was initiated?
Universe Is Not "Billions of Years" Old
The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. (Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are not disputing simple variations that some call "microevolution," whose micro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false:
1. the universe is billions of years old,
2. life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals,
3. mutations create or improve a species,
4. natural selection has creative power.
In this section we will deal with the first of these assumptions. The others will be dealt with elsewhere. If, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the universe is not billions of years old, all other arguments about evolution become meaningless and unnecessary.
In children's fairy tales, we are told:
frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince
In modern "science" textbooks we are told:
frog + time = prince
The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.
In nearly all discussions and debates about evolution that I have held at universities and colleges, I ask the evolutionists how certain things could have evolved by chance. Their answer is nearly always "Given enough time..." Time is the evolutionists' god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.
But let's remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:
1. Evolution becomes obviously impossible.
2. Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.
3. Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.
Let's imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years.
"That's impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!"
"How can you prove I'm wrong?" I say.
"Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say.
"Okay," I admit, "you're right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!"
"No!" you say. "Casio didn't make the Databank watch until twelve years ago."
"All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then."
"Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and it's still running. That proves it has been here less than five years."
While we still can't prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.
The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days. Then, approximately 4400 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a worldwide Flood. This devastating, year-long Flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Gen. 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumption--that today's slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been--is faulty logic, and ignores catastrophes like the Flood. (2 Pet. 3:3-8 says that the scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood.)
Listed below are some of the factors from various branches of science that limit the age of the universe (including earth) to within the last few thousand years. Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, its age can be shown to not be billions of years old. Each of the following evidences of a young earth is described in great detail in the books referenced below. Source number and page number are given for the following statements (at the bottom of this page):
Evidence from Space
The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. (1, p. 169; 2, p. 30; 4, pp. 56-63; 5, p. 26; 6, p. 43;)
The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)
"I get a picture therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice, level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first, and sinking majestically out of sight." -- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, January, 1959, p 36
Lyttleton felt that the X-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rocks "could, during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep." -- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, vol. 115, pp. 585-604
The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old. (2, p. 31; 3, p. 27; 4, p. 35; 6, p. 37; 7)
Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. (4, p. 26)
The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents. (3, p. 25; 6, p. 43; 7)
The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. (8, p. 177; see also 4, p. 51, for information on rock "flow")
The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. (3, p. 29; 6, p.44)
At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years. (3, p. 29; 4, pp. 30 and 59; 6, p. 44)
Saturn's rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old. (4, p. 45)
Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. (5, p. 26; 4, p. 43; Jupiter's moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old. (4, p. 3)
Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star--today it is a white dwarf star. Since today's textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.
Evidence from Earth
The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than billions. (1, p. 157; 2, p. 27; 3, p. 20; 5, p. 23; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 10, p. 38)
The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly. (1, p. 156)
Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation. (1, p. 153; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 42)
The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) (1, p. 151; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25)
The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils. (2, p. 31; 6, p 38; American Science Vol 56 p 356-374)
Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation. (6, p. 38)
Niagara Falls' erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7)
The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years. (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 37; 7)
The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) (3, p. 23; 6, p. 38; 7)
The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution. (3, p. 25; 7)
A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution. (1, p. 155; 6, p. 28; 7)
The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years. (5, p. 27; 6, p. 39; 7)
The Sahara desert is expanding. It easily could have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.
The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now. (7; 9, p. 26; 10, p. 37)
Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years. (7)
Evidence from Biology
The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years. (1, p. 167; 3, p. 27; 6, p. 41; 7)
The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. (6, p. 39; 7)
The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old. (6, p. 40; 7)
Another factor to consider: The genetic load in man is increasing. Geneticists have cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hand of the Creator but has been going downhill as a result of our disobedience to the laws established by the Creator and the increased radiation from the sun. The Bible teaches that we live in a sin-cursed world as a result of Adam's sin.
Evidence from History
The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old. (1, p. 160)
Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known.
Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.
The following Bible verses tell when "the beginning" was:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Mt. 19:8)
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mk. 10:6)
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (Jn. 1:1)
That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. (1 Jn. 1:1)
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 Jn. 3:8)
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time. (Mt. 24:21)
Ye are of your father the devil.... He was a murderer from the beginning. (Jn. 8:44)
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel. (Lk. 11:50, 51)
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth. (Heb. 1:10)
For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is. (Ex. 20:11)
Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Pet. 3:4)
The works were finished from the foundation of the world. For God did rest the seventh day from all his works. (Heb. 4:3, 4)
For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created to this time. (Mk. 13:19)
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? (Is. 40:21)
Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord am he. (Is. 41:4)
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? (Mt. 19:4)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. (Ro. 1:20)
Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one or two of these evidences and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong. This is not logical, of course. Each evidence stands independently: it only takes one to prove the earth is young. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists if they expect all taxpayers to fund the teaching of their religion in the school system. Many who believe in evolution are great at "straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel" (Mt. 23:24).
Evolutionists love to assume uniformitarian processes. Many of the preceding evidences follow the same logic evolutionists use all the time in dealing with carbon dating, strata formation, genetic drift, etc.
It is interesting to read the ramblings of nay-sayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to answer theses evidences for a young universe. See how many times they use words like: we believe, perhaps, could have, there is some reason to believe, etc. Evolutionists may need billions of years to make people believe a rock can turn into a rocket scientist, but that time just isn't available.
Sources
1. Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, April 1985.
2. McLean, G. S.; McLean, Larry; Oakland, Roger. The Bible Key to Understanding the Early Earth. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Southwest Radio Church, 1987.
3. Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983.
4. Ackerman, Paul D. It's a Young World After All. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1986.
5. Blick, Edward F. A Scientific Analysis of Genesis. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Hearthstone Publ. Ltd., 1991.
6. Petersen, Dennis R. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. South Lake Tahoe, Calif.: Christian Equippers International, 1987.
7. Hovind, Kent E. Creation Seminar, Parts 1-7 (most items referenced onscreen--available from Creation Science Evangelism, 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, Fla. 32503).
8. Wysong, R. L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. Midland, Mich.: Inquiry Press, 1976.
9. Baker, Sylvia. Bone of Contention. Creation Science Foundation Ltd., Sunnybank, Queensland 4109 Australia: 1990.
10. Moore, John N. Questions and Answers on Creation-Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977.
11. Brown, Walt. In the Beginning--
My mistake.My argument has nothing to do with inaccuracies in the bible (or accuracies).
Therefore, I will never debate the scientific accuracy or inaccuracy of the bible as it is irrelevant to the debate over teaching creationism. I shouldn't have lowered myself, even momentarily, to the provocation.
Fine. Thanks for clearing it up. I thought one of your main points were inacurracies in the Bible.
Again, creationists are only interested in evolution to the extent that they believe that evolution challenges their view of a particular religiously based morality. Otherwise they wouldn't expend such an extraordinary amount of energy on it.
Again, evolution implies nothing whatsoever about a religious belief or a system of morals. Except, of course, to a small minority of self-styled "christians" who push a very particular, and very ugly, moral agenda, many details of which are at odds with mainstream judeo/christian worship and theology.
Again you are correct many creationists strongly defend their position because evolution would mean they are wrong.
I believe young earth creation from a scientific viewpoint. I personally like the Hovind Theory for Creation. See www.drdino.com and the online seminar for more information.
I cannot for space and time explain here why I believe from a scientific viewpoint that young earth creation is the right way. I don't have all the answers for the position because I wasn't there when God created the universe much like evolutionists weren't around to watch the varying viewpoints on evolution.
By the way what is "mainstream" Christianity? That's a very vague term.
Macro evolution as described in the big bang theory ? That's so wrong that the word 'wrong' seems insufficient. You need to do a lot of learning and thinking, not discussing, right now.
Many people and scientist (especially if they are strong atheists) believe macro evolution and life started with the big bang. I was replying to them. There are so many views on evolution even in this discussion that it would take 100 pages of posts for me to hit them all. I know there are many ideas/theories/opinions on evolution. The same is true for creation. Please don't take me as someone who is ignorant. I have read many books on evolution and creation. I understand although I don't agree with evolution, no matter which view you hold.
There are many serious theological implicatons if evolution is correct, that is why man Christians don't want to believe in evolution. Even though I am a seven day young earth creations, I always consider the other side. In order for me to accuratly defend what I believe, I have to.
Someone needs to stop getting all of their science information from Jerry Falwell. ...
I'm not. Many atheistic evolutionists don't want to believe in God, even a god using evolution. So they apply macro evolution to the big bang.
The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the origin of life.
then where does life come from? Many evolutions believe that life came as a result of the big bang. That's what is passed about as the origin of life by many evolutionists. Your opinion on the origin of life and evolution differs with many other people's views.
"Macro" and "micro" evolution are artificial labels and are practically meaningless.
Artifical or not, the classic example of "macro" evolution is speciation, which we have watched happen in the wild and in the lab
micro evolution still does not prove macro, even in the lab. The change of the finches (the most popular example) does not prove that life became more complex from single cell to the animals, plants, and people we have today.
What you asked for was proof of the fact of evolution. The term "evolution" just means that the genetic characteristics of a population change over time. This is easily demonstrated -- witness drug resistance diseases. Therefore, evolution is a fact, QED.
That does not prove that things are getting more complex and changing into new kinds (ie from single cell to multi cell to some type of fish to some type of land animal to some type of monkey to some type of human.)
try again.
Give me one instance of errors of science in the Bible, and I'll explain it to you and show you it's not.
That still doesn't prove Macro evolution like in the big bang theory which states single cell organisms gradually increase in complexity until they become something like the people, animals and plants that we have today.
Try again.
Macro evolution as described in the big bang theory says simple cell or single cell organisms evolved gradually over billions of years into the animals and people we have today.
Micro evolution is like the finches that are so often discussed. They were move from one part of the world to some island. Their beaks changed shapes and there were other changes. Another type is the mice that were moved that they say have developed into a "different species".
I have no problem with micro evolution. Animals (and probably people) will change biologically to some extent if given the proper conditions. This is no proof for macro evolution. The finches are still birds and the mice are still mice. Since they are not breeding with a large a gene pool as before, they change over time. They will have LESS genetic information. Which is a loss (duh). Macro evolution states things go from least complex to more complex. Single cell to animals we have today. It can't be proven that the changes in the finces prove this aspect of Macro evolutoin.
Evolution is like gravity, both fact and theory ...
Name me ONE 100 % scientifically, labratory prove fact of evolution? I have yet to see it.
Mammoths are being cloned because they are abundant. They have found many completely frozen. Some were frozen so quickly that the food in their mouths and stomachs are indentifiable. This makes the DNA easy to get from the blood, muscle, or whatever tissue they will use. With Sabre Tooths, all we have are fossilized skeletons where the DNA has been replaced by stone so we probably won't get any of them through cloning.
Diamonds are not scarce. The only reason they're considered valuable is because the diamond / jewelry companies have conviced people that diamonds are rare should be kept. Diamonds are actually quite abundant. If people treated them as such, the prices would drop dramatically and make them more affordable.
One of my friends when working on his master's in computer science used a nintendo glove connect to a computer for a project. He wrote code that interfaced to a VRML program that allowed him to move objects in the program instead of using a mouse or keyboard. I see something like this being used in CAD type applications. A user puts it on and moves & rotates objects to view them in other positions. It would be a much more natural way to do it than a joystick, keyboard or mouse.
Repetitive reading phonics drills is how many students learn to read at a young level (4 to 7 years old). They go down a chart and repeat the sound made for letter combinations (ie PH says 'F', ing, tion and the like). I was in a church school that used this method to teach me to read. This might help you learn to recognize letter combinations with their sounds. (I realize you can already read). The school I had used the A Beka ciriculum which has one of best phonics programs around. Their website is www.abeka.com
Actually this is now new. There were many varying measurements to the speed of light until the invention of the atomic clock. Time in testing it was done comparing it to an atomic clock. Since atomic decay is losing of energy and energy is related to the speed of light, it wasn't noticed in recent years because the atomic decay is proportionate to the speed of light.
Open Source Projects can be sold. However, you must include the source code. You can still have a regular copyright on content. An example would be the Quake engine. Id released the source code. You can develop a game with it and change the source. You can then sell the game all you want. You must release the source you used/changed for the game. However, you can still copyright the graphics, music, and content and prevent others from using it in a commericial product. Open Source does not mean free software as in money, but free access to the source code to the software.
Did you check the prices on those? They run $10,000 or more. For that you can find a digital camera that does what he needs. I believe he's looking for something a little more reasonable in price.
Slashdot ran this story About Intel's 64 Bit x86 CPU if the Itanium fails or AMD's 64 bit chip does better.
This concept makes Groundskeeper Willie's retirement grease a reality !!!
It's interesting to see that a big corporation that most enviromentalists love to loathe is actually doing something that won't pollute the enviroment. These new automobiles won't pollute like the current crop of autos do. I have yet to see one enviromental group actually do something constructive that allows people to retain their current standard of living. Instead most of them SEEM to want everyone to live in mud huts and walk everywhere.
*please don't mark this as flaimbait or off topic it's not meant to be. I just see most enviromentalists groups as a bunch of socialist or communist pigs who want to destroy capitalism*
What does this have to do with our conversation? Absolutely nothing, just like your "point".
My point was meant to deal with the parent post I responded to. If you had read the ENTIRE line of posts where I had made that comment, you would have seen that the parent post said that our founding fathers weren't christians and gave some internet links to "prove" his points. I was merely responding to him because I believe him to be wrong and gave a link supporting my position.