Creationist Website Challenge

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Paul of Eugene, Feb 13, 2004.

  1. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the great Creationist Website Challenge.

    Can one find a Creationist Website of at least 3 pages in length anywhere in the world wide web that does not assert a scientific error?

    For the purpose of this challenge the mere assertion that evolution is false does not count as a scientific error, nor does the mere assertion that the earth is younger than 4.5 billion years. But the site has to maintain these are true and pay some attention to scientific evidence as part of that claim, and has to have at least three screens in it.

    Is there such a site anywhere out there?
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is that a challenge? And what will it prove? The lack of a such a site proves nothing because the truth of creationism is not measured by the purity of its proponents.

    You cannot even find an evolutionist website that would meet this criteria.

    You are misguided in your attempt with this thread.
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK I've already looked over this site:

    http://www.kjvbible.org/

    And it isn't young earth. It proposes the gap theory and acknowledges lots of extinctions in the past. It seems to accept millions of years of earth history. So it doesn't qualify on the grounds that it isn't YEC. I'm not even sure, from looking over it that it is against evolution for animals in the distant past.
     
  5. Butterflies4mami

    Butterflies4mami
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr.Dino.com is excellent.
    I have heard Dr. Hovind teach several times and own his lecture tape and several of his debate tapes. I never even knew how much evolution I was taught in public school, until my eyes were opened to it! He is very well informed and knows what he is talking about.I highly recommend his material!
    In Christ,
    Peggy
     
  6. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your sweet response is such a blessing to the Body of Christ, you should post more often.
     
  7. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    It always seems strange to me that someone with a degree from bible college, or even an M Div can readily find flaws in the scientific systems devised by thousands of scholars over hundreds of years. Evolution is NOT a proven theory but science has showed us that a young earth screation scheme is unlikely. That does not make science evil - it makes it useful. It helps us to interpret some of the difficult passages of the bible.

    Besides, the whole push for a young earth creationism is founded upon the (fundamentally flawed) assumption that all of the bible should be interpreted literally.

    Genesis 1 is intending to show the nation of Israel that YHWH created all and that the pagan creation myths are baloney. It was not intended to give us a literal description of how long it took God to make everything.
     
  8. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Precepts,

    Your profile looks like none other than QS!

    :D :D :D :D :D
     
  9. Todd

    Todd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I don't honestly believe that Paul of Eugene is seriously considering any acceptance of the young Earth position, He should at least look at the work of Dr. Henry Morris who has earned the title, "The Father of Modern Creationism." He is a respected scientist (having taught at Virginia Polytechnic for several years), and has written a number of textbooks in his own field. His magnum opus is probably "The Genesis Record," but one would also do well to read some of his other books, such as "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" and "Biblical Creationism." His son, Dr. John Morris, is also very active in the field of young Earth creationism and has published a very user friendly book entitled "Young Earth." And as you will also remember Paul, I called your attention to a book entitled "Grand Canyon: A Different View" in a previous string - did you ever even take the time to look it up? It is filled with great science taken from the Canyon itself - science that disproves the whole theory of macroevolution. One critique you may have of the aforementioned works is that they are written from the perspective of those who are young Earth creationists, but that is exactly why I list them. If you really want to learn the science of young Earth creationism, you should read it from the scientists themselves.

    Personally, I don't put a whole lot of trust in info I gather from websites - many times because the info is not backed with references or works cited. Book research is nearly always much better than web research.
     
  10. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not even a theory. It is a hypothesis.

    According to the scientific method, a hypothesis has to have stood up to independent testing in order to become a theory. There is no way to test the hypothesis of macroevolution, since you'd have to test it by reproducing the process over millions of years.

    Evolutionists normally react one of two ways when they are confronted with this challenge.

    1. It is impossible to test it over millions of years.

    2. The scientific method doesn't require testing as in actual testing or reproducing the process, all it requires is the power of prediction, which is what one tests.

    My answers:

    1. Too bad. So it's impossible? Does that mean you can eliminate some of the requirements of the scientific method just because it's too hard to do it the right way?

    2. Apparently, the answer to #1 is "yes", because this is precisely what one has done when one relies on the "predictive power" argument. It arbitrarily removes the requirement for independent testing in order to make it possible to call evolution a "theory". In short, it redefines the requirements to get the desired results.
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    npetreley

    There is a problem with your logic. We do have the ability to go out and perform experiments and observations to support evolution. One of the best things we can observe is the fossil record to see if the the predictions that come from the theory (hypothesis to you) are actually found. The fossil record has so far been found to be in step with the TOE. In our own lifetimes, we have observed speciation, the origin of new species. We have observed new traits deveoping and watched new metabolic pathways form. There are also other observations that can be made, such as the twin nested heirarchy. In short, there are observations that have been made to test the hypothesis and allow it to become a well respected, well supported theory.
     
  12. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since Paul took the first in the list of websites posted, I will take the second.

    http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

    I go there and I go straight to the heading labeled "Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution." The very first "evidence" listed is

    "There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world."

    Some transitionals for you: Archeopteryx, Ambulocetus, Homo ergaster, Acanthostega, Thrinaxodon, Hylonomus, Diacodexis, Tristychius, Ichthyostega, Pholidogaster, Elpistostege, Dimetrodon, Procynosuchus, Proconsul, Sivapithecus, Dryopithecus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Caudipteryx, Unenlagia, Protarchaeopteryx, Confuciusornis,...

    Oh well, you get the picture. No need to fill a page.
     
  13. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, UTEOTW, for your contribution

    Because Dr. Dino's web site was mentioned a couple of times as being especially good, I looked it over and found the following scientific errors. The quotes are all from his web site.

    Here is a link to a Nasa provided shot of the grand canyon from space:

    http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/debrief/STS066/images/fig11c.jpg

    Anyone can view this and ponder the questions about the origins of the grand canyon. Does it resemble a quickly created channel from rapid erosions? The sinuous nature of the channel is obviously inconsistent with that. Seen from space, the many channels that the come together to form the colorado river look almost feathery, there is so much detail and elaboration of channel upon channel. This is the result of eons of erosion, not a single slopping of water from a flood.


    Actual facts:
    The Sun is both swelling and growing brighter with time. (geological time, not historical time). Loss of mass from the sun is inconsequential, it is so slight. (There is a solar "wind" blowing from the sun, it accounts for part of the pushing on comet tails, but there is so little matter involved that the vacuum of the inner solar system is still greator than the vaccuum we can achieve with the best vacuum pumps available)

    An adequate reply to this scientific error is posted here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html


    This ignores the mainstream scientific alternative view that there is a resovoir of comets outside the solar system that periodically contributes a comet to the inner solar system. It is in the inner solar system that sunlight corrodes comets away, making them short lived.


    The magnetic field of the earth is created by electrical currents generated in the dynamics of the molten rock inside the earth, differentially rotating faster than the outer shell of the earth. This field has been shown to periodicaly REVERSE every million years more or less. It is not, as Dr. Dino apparantly assumes, a one time created field that is decaying over time to an eventually zero value. Incidently, the Sun's magnetic field reverses every 11 years with the well known solar cycle, a fact that shows magnetic field reversal does occur when the conditions are right.
     
  14. doug_mmm

    doug_mmm
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2002
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    People,

    I'm not here to bad mouth anyone but I do feel concerned with the credibility folks are awarding Dr Kent Hovind on these pages.

    Please consider the following

    Kent Hovind 1

    http:// Kent Hovind 2

    http:// Kent Hovind 3

    http:// Kent Hovind 4

    best wishes
    Doug
     
  15. doug_mmm

    doug_mmm
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2002
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    PS Look at his 'Patriot University' ! and draw your own conclusions.
     
  16. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Next, I considered Walter Brown's site, www.creationscience.com

    I found the following errors that to my relatively untrained eye seem to be glaring scientific errors:

    In asserting that the solar system could not have come from a condensation of a gian nebula, W.B. cited the following "problems"

    Fact: In a chaotic, condensation driven formation process, impacts and close encounters would also play a role. These all have the ability to create the anomolies he states are "impossible".


    W.B. also believes that the asteroids were all created from the earth! Here's one quote to that effect, although he asserts this in over several pages . . .

    Unfortunately, there is a physical fact about the asteroids he has failed to take into account. The Kirkwood Gaps.

    Jupiter and Saturn, working together, have gravitationally removed the asteroids that happened to have orbits that resonated "wrongly" with them.
    This effect is, as you can easily imagine, a very weak affect and would take about a million years minimum to actually achieve the result we observe.


    http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01122.x/abs/

    I cite this as evidence against his assertion that the asteroids came from earth during the time of Noah.
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    In light of this

    "You cannot even find an evolutionist website that would meet this criteria."

    and this

    "Now you're talking! And in the spirit of fair play, here's an old universe site:"

    I had meant to add my own site to be scrutinized, but I forgot. I wasn't going to bother after the fact, but since this thread has new life, here goes.

    http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/

    It is all the press releases for the Very Large Telescope project. The press releases contain a wealth of science.
     
  18. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK I took a look at the next site in the list:

    www.nwcreation.net

    Here's a fairly easily falsifiable statement directly lifted from the site:

    Anyone who seriously studies the geological column will find lots of evidence that it was not all deposited at the same time by the same event. Why are there no vultures fossilized with flying dinosaurs? Why no elephants fossilized with stegasaurus? The creatures that live in the mud - like clams - they differ greatly over the geological eras. How come they were never mixed up in the flood?

    The idea that the whole geological column is the result of a single global cataclysm is impossible.

    You can see a more detailed critique of this claim at the following site:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
     
  19. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK I looked over the following web site

    http://www.sixdaycreation.com/

    And I found the following quote:

    This is unquestionably a young earth site, yet look at the poor wording above - "While I myself will admit that carbon14 dating is not exactly accurate, it is no way billions of years inaccurate!"

    Doesn't that almost seem to SUPPORT an old earth?

    But the other fact is clear. Our writer here expects that carbon 14 dating is claimed to apply over millions and millions of years. In fact, the use of the particular carbon 14 method of dating is limited to a few tens of thousands of years, and over 50,000 years, barely a blink of an eye in the age of the earth, it completly peters out.

    A tip for you budding students of radiometric dating: For ages in the millions of years, it is necessary to analyze the radioactive decay of longer lived elements, such as uranium.

    Another poor showing by a supposedly scientifically accurate site. And in this case, poorly worded too.
     

Share This Page

Loading...