What do Aussies believe re: Evolution?

[weatherbill]

Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

made a 2 part youtube video on this.

Tell us what you believe and why.

I firmly believe in creation and find the evolutionist view quite unscientific.
One of those evidences is the jagged mountians. For instance, the rocky mountains in the US evolutionists say are 50-100 million years old, but that cannot be because with that amount of time, they would have worn down, due to the laws of the thermodynamics, physics and gravity. They would be much more rounded.
there are also many geologic clocks that tell us the earth is relatively young and not millions of year sold, such as meteoric dust layers on the moon where there is no erosion, population growth rates, oil deposit pressures, recession of the moon, earth's magnetic fied weakening...... and many others, giving us a time of the earth of no more than 10,000 years.
evolutionists radiometric dating methods are filled with numerous assumptions, such as not accounting for water, heat and origional element amounts.
It is utterly redicoulous when you fully understand it all.

 

[Nyden]

Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

....Creation theory is nonsense, religion is nothing but lies.....

Even religion is now starting to embrace evolution, for fear of losing their 'flocks'. 10,000 years old, huh? Wow, pretty rapid recovery of life after the event that wiped out the dinosaurs, but oh, of course - "god" willed us all into existence!

How I pity those that cannot live without the security blanket of an 'afterlife'

 

[Dunger]

Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

As a follower of evolution which observes natural phenomena and then explains this through a hypothesis which can then be verified by peers and not of creation which is only concerned with the accuracy of the bible, (because if the bible is wrong about creation then how can the rest of it be correct?) I can provide rebuttals for all of your 'theories'.

Indicator 3: Pressure of oil deposits: M.A. Cook claimed in his book "Prehistory and Earth Models" that if underground oil was as old as geologists claim that its pressure would have dissipated long ago. The fact that oil is found under pressure indicates that it is 10,000 years or less old. Presumably all of the natural gas would have escaped as well if the earth was old.

Rebuttal: Gas and oil accumulate gradually, as pressure and heat work on organic matter over long periods of time. If the rocks holding in the reservoirs of gas and oil were as leaky as creation scientists indicate, then this pressure never would have built up in the first place.

Indicator 4: Presence of oil: "They say it takes millions of year to make oil but scientists did it in a lab in 20 minutes." Another visitor to our site referred to a sewage treatment plant in Halifax, NS, Canada. They stated that: "Using heat to turn Halifax's half-million tons of sewage per year into 700,000 barrels of oil, the entire process takes about 30 minutes!"

Rebuttal: Under normal conditions (those found in nature) it does take a long time for oil to develop. But under ideal conditions (temperature, pressure, catalysts, etc.) it can be almost instantaneous.

It is useful to remember that oil is formed from plant life that is laid down in sedimentary layers. But by the time that it is found, the oil has typically migrated considerable distances through rock of varying porosities. Such migration typically takes millions of years to accomplish. So, the existence of underground oil is a good indicator of an old earth.

Indicator 8: Earth's rotational speed: The speed with which the earth rotates on its axis is slowing. Each day, the time taken for the earth to rotate on it axis is slowing down by about 1.5 milliseconds. This may not seem like much. But it amounts to over six seconds per decade. Astronomers must insert leap seconds many times each decade to compensate for this slowing. If the earth's rate of deceleration has been constant throughout the life of the earth, then its rotational speed would have been very high 4.5 billion years ago. A day would be have been only a few seconds long. This high rotational speed would have long ago flattened into the shape of a pancake. 12 That clearly did not happen, so the age of the earth must be a very small fraction of 4.5 billion years.

Rebuttal: In spite of the many web sites that show the error in this reasoning, many creation science promoters still offer this argument. Their basic belief is wrong: the time taken for the earth to rotate on its axis is slowing down by only about 1.5 milliseconds per century -- not per day.

The Moon raises tides in the ocean. This generates friction between the sea and the earth, diminishing the earth's speed of rotation. "This effect causes a slowing of the Earth's rotational speed resulting in a lengthening of the day by about 0.0015 to 0.0020 seconds per day per century." 13 The insertion of a leap second in most years is not directly related to this deceleration. In fact, if the earth stopped decelerating and achieved a constant speed, there would still be a need to insert leap seconds in most years. The need for leap seconds is caused by our basic definition of time, which is currently derived from atomic clocks. The second has been defined to match the day as it was in the year 1900. Over a century has passed since that time. During that century, each day has lengthened by about 1.8 milliseconds. So, over a year, the difference between an atomic clock and the earth is about 365 x 0.18 = 657 milliseconds, or 0.66 seconds. Thus the need for the leap second in most years. A century from now, the accumulated error will be over a second each year, requiring two leap seconds in some years.

We attempted to dialog with 15 creation science web sites which are in error on this matter. Even though we were able to prove that they were in error, only one webmaster acknowledged that they were wrong. And they decided to retain the error because their essay was part of their archive, so accuracy did not matter.

"To scientists who are not religious conservatives, creation science is not a part of science for a number of reasons:
Its conclusions cannot be falsified. The essence of the scientific method is that any hypothesis, conclusion, belief, or theory can only be considered tentative truth. It may be falsified at any time in the future as new evidence surfaces. Creation science, in North America, is generally based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Bible as inerrant truth. Thus it cannot be falsified. As courts have agreed, this deficiency alone is sufficient to classify creation science as a non-science or pseudo-science."

 

[Solly]

The answer is obvious.
Going Kirk with bananas.

 

[derty]

Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

One of those evidences is the jagged mountians. For instance, the rocky mountains in the US evolutionists say are 50-100 million years old, but that cannot be because with that amount of time, they would have worn down, due to the laws of the thermodynamics, physics and gravity. They would be much more rounded.

50-100 million years is not that long a time when talking rocks wb. Mountain ranges are produced from the crust by severe compressive events (orogeny's). The mountain range comprises the visible part that we see and there also exists a mountain root that extends into the mantle. A bit like an iceberg. As the mountains slowly erode the entire system re-balances or lifts as the material is removed from the mountains (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy). The constant lifting of the mountain system allows the erosional surfaces to remain quite jagged for a very long time. Rounding will only start to occur once that much materiel has been eroded that the core of the mountain range is now exposed at the surface (may have been originally 5 to 6 km below the surface) and the root level is now equivalent to the bulk of the adjacent crust.

oh and btw - evolutionists have bugger all to do with estimating the ages of mountains. That is the domain of geochronologers and structural geologists.

 

[drsmith]

Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

made a 2 part youtube video on this.

Tell us what you believe and why.

I firmly believe in creation and find the evolutionist view quite unscientific.
One of those evidences is the jagged mountians. For instance, the rocky mountains in the US evolutionists say are 50-100 million years old, but that cannot be because with that amount of time, they would have worn down, due to the laws of the thermodynamics, physics and gravity. They would be much more rounded.
there are also many geologic clocks that tell us the earth is relatively young and not millions of year sold, such as meteoric dust layers on the moon where there is no erosion, population growth rates, oil deposit pressures, recession of the moon, earth's magnetic fied weakening...... and many others, giving us a time of the earth of no more than 10,000 years.
evolutionists radiometric dating methods are filled with numerous assumptions, such as not accounting for water, heat and origional element amounts.
It is utterly redicoulous when you fully understand it all.

Where there are gaps or even anomalies in our scientific understanding of the universe around us it does not automatically equate to a higher power being the only explanation for any such gaps or anomalies.

 

[nunthewiser]

I was born under a wandering star.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

As a follower of evolution which observes natural phenomena and then explains this through a hypothesis which can then be verified by peers and not of creation which is only concerned with the accuracy of the bible, (because if the bible is wrong about creation then how can the rest of it be correct?) I can provide rebuttals for all of your 'theories'.

And collapse the whole religious system? Not on your life. Suddenly there would be billions of people looking for something to believe in, let alone the clergy lining up in dole queues.

 

[Calliope]

Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

And collapse the whole religious system? Not on your life. Suddenly there would be billions of people looking for something to believe in.

That is why hordes of people are clamouring to worship at the altar of Global Warming and are desperately seeking a new messiah to save the world from the apocalypse. St Kevin has put his hand up and expects to be anointed at Copenhagen.

 

[akkopower]

I feel the results here are skewed. People that use this site are probably not a good indication of the entire australian population. If the quiz was given at aldi supermarket the results would be different. I choose evolution by the way.

 

[nunthewiser]

I feel the results here are skewed. People that use this site are probably not a good indication of the entire australian population. If the quiz was given at aldi supermarket the results would be different. .

Totally agree actually .

Most of the people that are in this forum are of high intelligence and show there free thinking and individual thought out opinions................Unlike 90% of the population which is happy to be fed whatever tastes best at the time.

 

[Julia]

.....Unlike 90% of the population which is happy to be fed whatever tastes best at the time.

I think that's pretty right. I'm not meaning to divert this thread back to climate change but in a conversation with two friends today (both intelligent and reasonably well educated btw) they are convinced that the earth is getting hotter, and that this is due to CO2, which is due to human beings' profligate behaviour.

When I asked what they had read in order to form this view, neither had actually read a single scientific report/book/anything, but had simply absorbed the information from what is floating around from politicians and the media.

 

[Wysiwyg]

When I asked what they had read in order to form this view, neither had actually read a single scientific report/book/anything, but had simply absorbed the information from what is floating around from politicians and the media.

The information circulating does seem to be aimed at persuasion. Everything via agreement.

 

[derty]

Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

That is why hordes of people are clamouring to worship at the altar of Global Warming and are desperately seeking a new messiah to save the world from the apocalypse. St Kevin has put his hand up and expects to be anointed at Copenhagen.

While we are discussing evolution, I think I found the missing link in your ancestral lineage Calliope.

 

[wayneL]

Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

That is why hordes of people are clamouring to worship at the altar of Global Warming and are desperately seeking a new messiah to save the world from the apocalypse. St Kevin has put his hand up and expects to be anointed at Copenhagen.

I seem to recall that when reading some NWO conspiracy theories some time ago, that "they" would form some sort of new global religion.

"Rots of Ruck" I thought to myself, thinking one dimensionally that the religion would involve the supernatural.

Little did I realise.....

 

[Mr J]

Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

That is why hordes of people are clamouring to worship at the altar of Global Warming and are desperately seeking a new messiah to save the world from the apocalypse. St Kevin has put his hand up and expects to be anointed at Copenhagen.

It's sad, but true. Most people are happy being part of the herd. Doesn't matter whether it is religion, politics, environment, fashion, or pop culture. Not only does there seem to be the need for most to follow, but also to try and force others to join their herd.

As for evolution versus creation, they're not properly comparable. Creation addresses existance, while evolution addresses change. I will say that choosing to believe in a religion is not a logical action, so I hope whoever has made that choice hasn't made it because of logic.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?

It's sad, but true. Most people are happy being part of the herd. Doesn't matter whether it is religion, politics, environment, fashion, or pop culture. Not only does there seem to be the need for most to follow, but also to try and force others to join their herd.

Interesting you exclude yourself as a herd member. Are you suggesting you have no beliefs in line with a majority of people? If you don't believe in "religion, politics, environment, fashion, or pop culture" as per example then would you not be in the herd that doesn't believe?
Bit like the sheep calling others sheeples.

 

[Mr J]

Are you suggesting you have no beliefs in line with a majority of people?

That doesn't seem relevant to me, it is how those beliefs are formed that matters.

 

[Wysiwyg]

That doesn't seem relevant to me, it is how those beliefs are formed that matters.

Yes I agree.

 

[Mr J]

That said, I'm sure we are all influenced by society to an extent, just that some of us think for ourselves, some don't think, and some think for those who don't!