Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Scientists show that evolution was washed away - no more "settled science"

calfoxwc

By calfoxwc
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

http://constitution.com/flood-new-evidence-washes-away-old-earth-theory/

 

"Director Thomas Purifoy, former Naval officer and teacher, and founder of Compass Cinema, gathered over a dozen PhD’s who have spent their lives researching and analyzing important archeological, biological, paleontological and other scientific finds. These scientists discuss their discovers and what their findings may really be telling us.

Host Del Tackett, of “The Truth Project,” guides the audience to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, the peaks of mountains, the depths of the ocean and into the power of the microscope to explore the evidence of the earth’s formation and life.

The consensus among these scientists was that the interpretation of evidence could actually come down to your starting point. Trying to predict what happened thousands of years ago with today’s measuring sticks results in extremely skewed conclusions. Evolutionists believe the earth was on fire at one point, undergoing dramatic changes since then. Yet they use today’s flow of rivers to calculate the time needed to carve out canyons.

Evolutionists don’t just ignore a global flood. They fail to consider earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and other such natural disasters in their calculations. In their analysis, they assume the earth has always been as it is today. Those coming from a Biblical standpoint recognized the earth has undergone drastic changes and is not the same as it was just 6000 years ago."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

"For example, Tackett holds a rock known to have formed from volcanic eruptions occurring in 1986. Radiometric dating studies conduced in 1992 estimates its age at 350,000 years old. That is roughly 60,000 times older than reality. The methods for aging rocks and bones are incredibly unreliable but remain a staple for old earth theory.

Doctors from several scientific disciplines address other evolutionary inconsistencies. One such issue includes the formation in rock layers. While many claim these layers took millions of years to build up, the movie discusses several irregularities with this theory. For instance, there is no indication of erosion in between the layers. Therefore, old earth theory is inconsistent with physical evidence. This is just one of the many flaws shown regarding the millions of years rock formation belief.

Another hole is poked into the old earth theory by biologist Dr. Kevin Anderson. While examining a dinosaur horn, proteins and soft tissue were discovered inside. Explaining that such organic items break down very easily, especially under harsh conditions, this find is extremely rare. The fact that such proteins and tissue survived thousands of years is amazing. Therefore, to still be intact after millions of years would be virtually impossible.

One of evolutionists’ favorite arguments against a global flood is the Coconino Sandstone found in the desert. However, evidence actually points reality towards a flood. As the movie shows, the angle of formation is vital to the understanding of their development. Once measured, the small angle of the layers is consistent with those deposited under water, not the sharper angled layers put down by wind. Even though this fact has been known for over 60 years, scientists regurgitate false information they read in textbooks instead of investigating the visible truth..." themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

Oh man, I had to unhide these posts.

 

Who wants to take the first swing, or is it not even worth it?

 

he did a good job of keeping it within reasonable volume. But what can you say to the content? This whole theory puts the earth as puffing into existence 4000BC. We know the chinese, just as one example...were kicking around long before that because we have their writings. We don't need to rely on carbon dating. The chinese were studying astrology and whatnot and keeping time records. We have similiar stuff from the sumerians. But it's not like the scientists who use carbon dating claim they can date something down to the very year, it's always give or take a few thousand or hundred thousand years. But when something is telling you it's approx 35 million years old, than give or take a few 100k is nothing.

 

My personal theory about the young earth people is this. Year by year humans are discovering more and more about the realities of our existence in this universe, in all walks of science from biology to astronomy etc, etc. And slowly people are seeing not the disproving of a creator/god..that will likely never be possible. But we are seeing the disproving at least of alot of the stupid bullshit from the old testament and the people who wrote it. Personally i think the "need" for the earth to be only 6k years old is basically a need for validation of their spiritual beleifs. People like coatse would be "crushed" if the proof were to come out definitively. So far it's being chipped away at but nothing has come out that concretely disproves the abrahamic lineage. But it's coming. People are digging and one day their going to find manuscripts or stories predating the OT by thousands of years that has the very same stories in it that the writers of the old and new testaments grafted to their "creation myth". That's already happened actually, but right now it's circumstancial stuff.

 

For me personally after i read Gilgamesh it finally fell concretely into place. The bullshit i'd smelled for most of young adult life came home in full when i sat there reading this character at the end that Gilgamesh went to find to learn how to live forever. If you read it, you know who im talking about and you know damn well who that was in the OT. Gilgamesh predates the OT by a few thousand years so you can clearly see how at least this character was "blatantly" ripped from sumerian legends and put in the OT like some kind of original patent. It's horseshit. It's all one big concerted effort to keep from humans who they are. The who, why and where still eludes me. Especially the "why". But the the young earth people are def part of that narrative of keeping the cloak alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

I love when you get people coming at it like "the earth is only 6000 years old, how can dinosaurs possibly be millions of years old? That's just stupid".

 

As for finding one day that the bible borrows heavily from other mythology, it's already there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

my mother belongs to a fairly orthodox Catholic church and not even the pastor believes this bullshit. I asked him years and years ago why not and he said we're talking about the birth of the universe created by a being we cannot understand. The time frames that such a being, we call him god, is just not the same as for us. We can't wrap our heads around it and those that try come up with these ridiculous ideas that the earth is 6k years old and the universe was "literally" created in 7 days. He makes a valid point, if there was a sentient creator piecing together the universe all those years ago...our interpretation of time had no bearing on him. There was no "Monday" or "sunday" the day of rest for that ngr.

 

we measure time in days because we have a giant shiny ball in the sky that for the last few billion years has risen in the east and set in the west like clockwork. Without the sun you can bet your ass that humans would have come up with completely different measures of time. I've actually read that the 24 hour day is not the best suited for human circadian rhythms. Something like 35 hours or I dunno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Osiris Newbie

Osiris

Posted
Posted

My approach to this question, as a person with somewhat religious yet liberal tendencies, is the following.

 

-The Quran says we were given eyes and ears and the ability to think so that we may understand the world around us.

-These eyes, ears, and ability to think have lead to certain conclusions about the world around us.

-Therefore, if all our senses and reason tell us something, and that something has been independently verified by thousands of people, than it is likely to be true. If something in the religious texts contradicts this, it means that we have interpreted the religious text incorrectly. The contradiction doesn't arise from the observed science nor does it arise from the religious text. It arises from within. We are the weakest link.

 

That's how I square things so that I never have this conflict between religion and science that seems to crop up with Christianity all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

The Apostle Paul said we see through a dark glass right now. God has revealed much to us in His word (but not everything) and that is what the bible is a book of revelation knowledge not a science book. Science many times has confirmed the truths in the bible (along with archeology). Back in the day when most thought of the universe as being eternal the bible spoke of the universe having a beginning which about all scientists agree with today. That is revelation knowledge.

 

All the evidence points to an earth and universe way older than 6,000 years so for me it comes down to does the six days in the bible refer to what we think of in 24 hour spans or is it just symbolic language? The bible also says one day with God is like a thousand years meaning concepts of time that we understand are different than God's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

not when other scientists refute what they say.

 

like the tree rings scandal. The manipulation of data.

 

A scientist's "truth" is not true when other scientists says it's not.

 

I say, I don't know which one is right, but I'm not accepting either one as FACT, either,

especially for ulterior motive-driven political expediency.

 

Did I just talk over your head? Want me to break it down in simpler terms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

Ive got ur simplerbterms right here.....more phd's say global warming is happening and many of them say humans are responsible, vs those phd's that deny it. But the phd's from group number one, in ur eyes, are all angling for funding and nothing more.....despite the demonstrable reality that many of these research labs get the same funding no matter what the outcome of their research. But the group of phd's that deny vlimate change, u willfully look past many of their "direct" relationships to the fossil fuel industry.

 

And thats the long and short of u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure what the Convo is here, but Cal will pull a PhD in Biology and scream "See! see! Experts disagree with mmgw!" and the simultaneously tell you the consensus of climatologists are all liberals and paid off by our liberal govt.

 

 

Scientific issues being politicized. Sad! Allows politicians to manipulate the unintelligent into believing them over the actual experts

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

? read his post right before mine. He's been on a short bird leash. He stopped, I stopped.

He starts, I start responding again.

 

Seriously, do you have a problem reading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...