Creationists

[cbirch2]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

 

[Baron]

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00&feature=related]Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube[/ame]

 

[cbirch2]

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube

LMAO WITH A HERMAN CAIN BANNER FOR HIS SIGNATURE!!!! LMAO!!!

that was the most ridiculous video ive ever watched. your very simple.

 

[pinqy]

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube

Well, I didn't have to watch much. When his first thing on how to determine the age of the earth he says "we go to the Bible." Why? Why not look at the physical evidence first?

And next he starts talking about "Evolutionists say the age of the earth is..." and "...the Big Bang theory, according to Evolution..." Neither is part of the Theory of Evolution. The first real theory of Evolution was Lamarkism, who published in 1800, 60 years before Darwin. But even before that, geologists and Naturalists figured out the Earth was much older than 6,000 years, going back to Nicholas Steno in the late 1600s.

 

[cbirch2]

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube

Well, I didn't have to watch much. When his first thing on how to determine the age of the earth he says "we go to the Bible." Why? Why not look at the physical evidence first?

And next he starts talking about "Evolutionists say the age of the earth is..." and "...the Big Bang theory, according to Evolution..." Neither is part of the Theory of Evolution. The first real theory of Evolution was Lamarkism, who published in 1800, 60 years before Darwin. But even before that, geologists and Naturalists figured out the Earth was much older than 6,000 years, going back to Nicholas Steno in the late 1600s.

He understood only a very small part of that

 

[geauxtohell]

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube

Who is John Morris Pendleton?

This is quite the CV, let me tell you........

• 
  - In the year 2000, he has answered and mailed free creationist materials in Spanish to almost 120 individuals from 13 countries. These were letters and emails in response to the Spanish radio broadcasts of Back to Genesis of the Institute for Creation Research.
  - At present, he is dedicating his efforts to Zacatecas, Mexico to bring the message of creation into the public schools and the community, and to equip the local churches with teachings and materials to do the same.
  - Founder and director of the Grupo Internacional de Científicos Creacionistas -- G.I.C.C. -- The International Group of Creation Scientists and their group of associate members.
  - Presented the creationist conferences in Cuba in March and December of 1999, with plans to tour all of Cuba in 15 days in July or August of 2001.
  - Was one of the main speakers in the First and Second National Creationist Congress in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico in May, 1998 and August, 2000.
  - His creationists conferences in video (Spanish and English) are now in the U.S.A., 15 Latin American countries, Spain, Zimbabwe, Africa and India.
  - Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of Wisconin in Madison, U.S.A.
  - Automotive technician for 10 years.
  - Worked in cancer research for 1 1/2 years.
  - Made creationist conferences for Christian television in El Paso, Midland-Odessa and San Antonio, Texas.
  - Part of the team that won the debate on CREATION AND EVOLUTION at the University of Morelos in Cuernavaca, Mexico in 1994.
  - Translated and published in Spanish 15,000 copies of the powerful booklet by Ken Ham -- DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE.
  - Interviewed on various radio and t-v stations in the U.S.A., Mexico, Venezuela and Paraguay.
  - For television, made 40 half-hour programs about science, the Bible, the creation, evolution, dinosaurs and the flood.

• 
  
  The guy's got a bachelor's degree and worked as a mechanic and thinks he can slap a labcoat on and have instant credibility.
  
  Hilarious.
  
  At least, unlike Kent Hovind, he didn't buy a Ph.D. at a Diploma Mill.

 

[cbirch2]

"you should do not believe liberals"

 

[pinqy]

"you should do not believe liberals"

The Catholic Church, which accepts the old earth and most of evolution (seperate creation of the soul) is liberal?

 

[cbirch2]

"you should do not believe liberals"

The Catholic Church, which accepts the old earth and most of evolution (seperate creation of the soul) is liberal?

That was me quoting the second poster and his horrible grammar. Nothing to do with the actual argument.

 

[pinqy]

"you should do not believe liberals"

The Catholic Church, which accepts the old earth and most of evolution (seperate creation of the soul) is liberal?

That was me quoting the second poster and his horrible grammar. Nothing to do with the actual argument.

Oh, I knew...I was just trying to reinforce your point.

 

[konradv]

"you should do not believe liberals"

The Catholic Church, which accepts the old earth and most of evolution (seperate creation of the soul) is liberal?

Liberal, yes, on points like the death penalty and torture. Not so liberal on things like gay marriage and abortion. It's really not valid to make a blanket statement like that from either side.

 

[geauxtohell]

"you should do not believe liberals"

"You should not believe auto-mechanics who claim to be "chemists" because they got a bachelor's in chemistry on an issue of biological science."

 

[Obamerican]

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube

It seems your "chemist" is a newbie with his head up his ass.

 

[HUGGY]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Babies toys from China with lead paint on them.

 

[Sophist]

Creationists based their beliefs on a book 3000 years old... Darwin had his theories at around the mid 1800's. Millions of the smartest people in the world advocate the fact that the world is at least older than 6000. I don't know but given the facts I vote for the scientists.

Creationists then say: But it's highly unlikely the world was created from a simultaneous explosion into what it is today...

My reply: Well it is highly unlikely that the single specific sperm cell that fertilized the egg within your mother's womb was able to make the creature that you call yourself today yet it happened didn't it?

 

[Youwerecreated]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Here are some reasons.

Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis


http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/


Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis


Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia


This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

 

[LOki]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Here are some reasons.

Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis


http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/


Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis


Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia


This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Here are some reasons.

Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis


http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/


Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis


Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia


This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.

Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Here are some reasons.

Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis


http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/


Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis


Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia


This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.

Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.

You yourself on another thread said there was a 9,000+ year old tree, now you're on here defending those who say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

At least pick one psychotic idea and stick to it.

Or did God create that tree, use it as a toothpick, then later create the Earth and he planted it?

 

[Photonic]

I'll go ahead and repost my partial review on this video (I need to freaking finish this thing already).

Angular momentum can still be conserved in the big bang, this point made by him makes mention of a rotating singularity that consitutes the earliest moment of the planck epoch (Planck epoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
By extrapolating from Hawkings & Susskind's assessments of quantum singularity properties, given that the universe at 0-time was a proper quantum singularity (what allows this to be constituted as a singularity is in fact the same properties we assign a black hole are accounted for in the properties of the early universe) there are two theories that can be worked from this.
(Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The first is that there is no frame of reference, so conservation of angular moment isn't possible because it simply cannot be applied. The second and equally plasuable explaination is that the early universe was rotating from 0-time during the planck epoch which is a very clear possibility of a singularity, especially one like this. The second is more consistent with a multiverse theory of reality, given that the singularity formed was an event in a "parent" universe.

Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.

My assessment of his knowledge of gravity is that he lacks the basic understanding to make assertions about the coelescing of the early hydrogen gas in the universe under gravitational influences in sufficient quantities to ignite stars. He argues that this is unlikely but we know today that gravity has no limits on it's capability to interact from a long distance. We are being affected by gravity from other galaxies and just because it is not noticable to us personally it's quite observable. A quick glance at the galactic clusters that permeate our universe leave us with little option but to accept this simple notion.
For those who are mathematically inclined I am including the equations that will allow you to calculate the gravitationally binding energy of a system. (Gravitational binding energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I am going to pause at this point in the assessment of this video to say he seems to favor an incredibly simplified and almost derisive inclination to state evolution as bluntly and unfavorably as possible while still attempting to maintain neutrality. I do not find this becoming of someone claiming to be attempting to give people the facts and allowing them to decide themselves. Anyways, onward.

On the subject of radiometric dating, he fails to mention that more than a single "clock" is used in a sample for dating in billions of years. Uranium-235 and Lead-206. (Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
He mentions non-chrystalized igneous rock is undatable, but he also fails to mention that once it crystalizes it is easily dated almost to the moment. This is due to the inability to obtain a sufficient amount of crystalized (formed atomic structures) isotopes in the material.
His sand analogy doesn't really apply given the instruments used to measure. This is why there is a variable answer given to every dating. (Example: between 250-265,000 years) This is because samples used to date are taken from different geologic areas that are within a given distance and can provide accurate results.

His reference to relativity is unimagintive and lacking and INCREDIBLY insulting. He goes so far as to say it didn't need mentioning. This is not the attitude of someone who is attempting to give people equal footing in both to determine what is true.
Because he made no rational arguments against relativity, and simply relegated it to non-application which, in the context of his own argument, is impossible to do. He proceeds to do it anyways.

At this point in the movie he goes into evolution, which is not my speciality. I am educated on the topic but my opinions are not that of an evolutionary biologist but as someone well versed in evolution.

He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.


Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.



At the end of this film I get very heavy impression he is simply pandering to a Christian crowd with pseudoscientific evidence. I don't appreciate his obvious derision of science in general.

Issues with some "world-wide" flood; there is 3 times less than the required volume of water on Earth to produce such a flood, given that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on earth. This would mean, in no uncertain terms, that there would be a shell of water with the bottom 2/3 volume MISSING! Empty air!
His little flatness theory is interesting, completely explainable by simply saying that sediments act similarly in air as well.

This poses a number of issues mathematically but I will stop there so I can continue watching.