Now what is this nonsense about ‘scientific truth’ … you could start by explaining what that even means? But if it is anything whatsoever like the ‘catholic truth’ please don’t bother because I want none of that nonsense corrupting my science. Do you get off by trying to TELL me how MY science works (?) … well actually all you do is tell me that it doesn’t work because you are so ‘internally’ scientifically knowledgeable, give this a rest because it is that obvious. As I said before … PROVE the world is only 6,000 years old or get off the pot and stop telling me what science cannot do. All your truths are founded in magic … MAGIC … so I think you had better worry more about proving some of that nonsense say in a science lab … after you learn what a science lab Is and does.

PS - Here I will get you going - The young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science.

How old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?  http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

Oh, c'mon? I did offer a fact, a scientific fact...that the modern sciences of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology have empirically shown that the message sequence of DNA is designed to allow only change within kind (species) to occur. 

For Darwin Evolution to be true, evolutionists would have to prove that DNA allows change beyond kind. That, my dear, is a total waste.  

That the message sequencing of DNA is designed to allow only change/variety within kind to occur is a scientific truth. The scientific truth of the message sequencing of DNA makes Darwin Evolution theory collapse.

Scientific truth is consistent. Back in Darwin's day, we didn't know the scientific truths of DNA, but now, with the modern discoveries of Molecular Genetics, etc.  we do...and...they have subsequently proven Darwin Evolution Theory to be nothing but a myth.

I have offered a number of actual scientific facts that give limits for the age of the earth in my 116. One of them is the fact of the existence of radio polonium halos in granite all over the world. They just would not be there if the world was billions of years old.

That's why I like to call them "God's fingerprints".  

Lula

PS – True science hahaha, sounds like one of those old magazines that had all true stories in them too.

On the other hand your approach is unsavory at best. Because of the way in which you get your often ancient hate mail, you just naturally include me in with whatever group your church is after. Because I don’t believe in any deity, specifically yours, and for that reason only, you have taken too much liberty:

If your hate mail centers on a secularist problem then I am a secularist as needed. If it centers on humanism then I am one of those monsters too. If some atheist in bum fucked nowhere crosses the church well that attribute is automatically allotted to you guessed it, me. Some communist, heathen, brigand and well you get the picture. There is an unlimited amount of fun you can have with this shit and it doesn’t have anything at all to do with me … except for your say so.  You just seem incapable of ‘single talk’ … only of group attack talk. If your copy and paste function becomes disabled you would become speechless. People that know what they are talking about do not need to cheapen the discussion this way … because they know what they are talking about, pretty simple huh. You need to grow up again and take a fresh look around you because the world has changed some in the past 2,000 years.

The age of the Earth is 4.45 ± 0.05 billion years (± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. What do you offer to this discussion besides it just cannot be true? I will just assume you agree unless you can age the earth for me using your true science. Don’t they have to date stuff as well … why not the age of the earth then … or are they to stupid too?

I'll respond to 151 and on later, but first about who is "cheapening the discussion".

What? Repeating, repeating, repeating  such mistaken notions might make you feel better, but it doesn't make them true.

Oh, Yes, you do. You slam the Church, the Christian Faith, it's teachings and practices as well as the Bible every which way, 24/7.

Gee, isn't "ancient hate mail" your term?

I didn't invent the term or the meaning of Secularist, Atheist, or Communist, etc.  any more than you invented the term or the meaning of Catholic.

I do take Secularism, Atheism, and Communism seriously, and so I'd like to move on in this discussion like dignified grown-up girls.

We are who we are...two people with quite different basic viewpoints concerning all that exists, including life, space, time and matter.  By faith I believe in the revealed God and that His word in Genesis 1-11 is free from error because God cannot deceive nor be deceived. Therefore, with reasoning and study, I believe the premise of Special Creation offers a coherent basis for understanding the earliest events and how mankind came to be in a state of confusion and distress. I think it's very, very fair to say that now the various fields of Science have discovered empirical data (scientific truth) which support the viewpoint of Special Creation far, far better than the viewpoint of Stellar or Evolution Theory.     

The viewpoints of Special Creation or of Atheistic Stellar and Darwin Evolution....only one of these can be the truth for they are mutually incompatible.  

I know the believers in the viewpoint of Stellar Evolution have given the age the earth as 4.5 billion years old. I've seen it in student's science textbooks stated as fact, and yet they have provided no, let me repeat that, NO empirical scientific data.

The radiometric dating methods depend on belief in the assumptions employed and of data that is often conflicting. At best radioacticve dating is an attempt to date the age of rocks. The main problem is there is no way to determine how much radioactive material was present in the rocks when they were first formed. Even rocks with a known age have been tested by radioactive dating and produced ages in the millions of years in error. Another problem is that there is no way to tell whether a rock sample has been polluted by ground water or melting of the rock material and so there is no way to know for certain that radioactive decay has been constant.

So,

Knock, knock, ...the Stellar Evolutionist community is wrong in making this claim as fact. Why can't you understand that it's not my opinion or a religious thing,  but rather the fields of Science who have shown this claim to be wrong?

Turns out, the Stellar Evolutionist community have been ignoring other scientists who have presented the scientific truth that the decay and reversals of the earth's magnetic field which points to an earth only thousands of years old!

Turns out, the Stellar Evolutionist community have been ignoring other scientists who have presented the scientific truth that the Helium content in the atmosphere, the low concentration indicates the earth is much, much, much younger than 4.5 plus or minus years old.

Turns out, the Stellar Evolutionist community have been ignoring other scientists who have presented the scientific truth about the existence of radio polonium halos.  

Turns out, the Stellar Evolutionist community have been ignoring other scientists who have presented the scientific truth who havepresented data on the erosion and sedimentation of the earth. If the earth were billions of years old, current geological processes would have completely eroded and filled the oceans with sediment. Yet, the surface of the earth has suffered little erosion and the thickness of the sediment on the ocean floor indicates a much younger earth.   

All these scientific truths and more (such as the saltiness of the ocean) have determined that the age of the earth is much, much, much younger...more in line with the Special Creation viewpoint which would make the earth 6,000-10,000 years old.

So, you may consider thinking outside the box the Stellar Evolutionists have made for you. It turns out there are a large number of scientific truths, such as radiogenic Helium, etc.  that actually give limits for the age of the earth that are  far less than the Stellar Evolutionists would like.

Gentry is a scientist whose work with radioactive "halos" in rocks has put the very idea that Earth took 4.5 millions of years to form under direct challenge. 

The importance of these halos for the question of the earth's age is quite profound.  The presence of polonium radiohalos constitute evidence of the "book" and the premise of Special Creation and all the calculators and knowhow in the world can't change the fact. Gentry contends and I agree that the radioactivity responsible for these halos had such a fleeting existence that it should have disappeared long before the magma could have had time to cool and form the rocks. Robert V. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, and his video, The Age of the Young Earth, 1994.

So it is true science itself who helps answer your question at least in part for we know now that by the existence of these polonium radiohalos, radiogenic Helium in the atmosphere, and so forth and so on,  that the earth cannot possibly be 4.5 billion years old.

If you persist in disagreeing, then it would be these scientific facts that need examining instead of issuing insults and putdowns against the scientist who discovered them.

Do you care to explain what you mean by my "specific brand of totalitarianism"?

Ancient hate mail refers to your often outdated (by decades and centuries) copying and pasting of others ‘work’ … and your attacks presenting no valid arguments besides ridiculous depictions from other creationists about whose work you are personally clueless. That makes you incompetent to discuss the science itself (anyone can paste a statement). If you have proved anything, it is that you copy and paste way too much to be informed about the subject matter (you even seem to have to quote your scriptures as if for my benefit [thanks for stopping this practice]). Just the fact that there are ~700 creation ‘scientists (many who disagree with a short lived earth) as compared to 480,000 health sciences professionals who disagree. And you expect me to argue against the science practices already debunked by the pros of which you don’t believe either??? There is no excuse today for believing in a young earth besides it is supported by nothing besides blind faith and that is a good enough reason alone for me to reject the bible in its entirety as at best, useless medieval gobbledygook. You cannot prove the universe to be 6,000 years old which is why you will NEVER answer the question. Not my problem!

Lula there is not that much different between us (mindset not included) because we live in the same world. Regardless of how you perceive your origin you can look around the world and had better see the same things I do unless you are so divorced from reality that your vision is corrupted too.  We both believe in right and wrong and theology aside we are both capable of making those decisions because we make them all the time. You need some god to do all the work for you to making everything from nothing so you can waste your life on your knees, memorizing the bible and placating every whim of your church masters … who needs an education in your world??? I don’t think anything was made from nothing (that would be magic) and I have enough of a naturalist and astronomical understanding to actually appreciate the real beauty for what it is ... I do not need a heavenly caretaker to make any of it work for me or to make me feel all lovie-dovie inside … as the totalitarian RCC church promotes their (and yours) un-morals of homophobia, bigotry, condemnation, idol worship, superiority, infallibility among other bigotries which are openly practiced but with that kindly christian smile ever present of course as they pass the collection plate around again.

I don’t care what kind of creationism you feel is appropriate now because I don’t accept the premise and I see no need to. By whatever name you call it now, it is still just a barbaric idea that I find childish at best and I will not discuss it because I don’t know how to and I don’t want to, being pointless?

Oh what’s the point of involving me in one of your one sided conversations? You could have stated opinions here but you chose to tell me in no uncertain terms that science doesn’t work and all I will say to that is you are out of your frigging mind … that is a conversation stopper too. Thinking out of the box is what you think will help me huh, go figure.

Lula, just age the earth for us so we can put this evolution nonsense away for good, hahaha.

PS - Stellar evolution is the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime? Just thought I would point this out.  Like I said Lula, you don’t know what you are trying to discuss?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

Define Darwinian evolution and state where and why it is dysfunctional. Please use a better reason than "IT JUST DOESN'T WORK" or "GENTRY SAID SO". Define stellar evolution so I can play too. I am not at all sure why you are interested in the life and times of a star though??? State the age of the earth in numbers please. Until there is time for evolution, don't you think you are being disingenuous (as usual) by trying to disprove something that cannot be true IYO? Oh yea, define true science too please ... but I think you mean that only creation 'scientists' practice 'true science' but we will see.

The scientific truth of the existence of polonium radiohalos, the amount of radiogenic Helium in the atmosphere, the salt and mineral content of the earth's oceans, the earth's magnetic field getting weaker answer your question, although not surprisingly, you don't want to hear it.

My 2 final points are that scientists can demonstrate that there are many more factual processes that give young dates to the earth than with a billion of years age and that no one to date can prove the earth is old enough for Stellar and Darwin Evolution to take place and that my dear, is a problem for you.

...............

I understand what you are saying and agree with some of it, but only to a certain point. That's because belief in Origins matters whether its the viewpoint of Special Creation or of Atheistic Stellar and Darwin Evolution. That only one of them is true is the crux of the matter.

It's precisely because we have these very different viewpoints and only one of them is true that we cannot/do not see things the same way.  If Stellar and Darwin Evolution is true, then people are just animals and can make up their own rules about right and wrong just as animals do. In your viewpoint there is no absolute right and wrong and moral relativism abounds.  If Special Creation is true, then people were made by God and He gets to make the rules and His standards decide right and wrong.

That's why both viewpoints of our Origins matter and affect how (we) people act and that's why only  Humanists are allowed to impose a Stellar and Darwin Evolution only syllabus in schools claiming that they only qualify as science. 

Before the discoveries of modern Science, teaching Stellar and Darwin Evolution as a kind of scientific hypothesizing was fine..but now with these genuine scientific discoveries either tend to falsify these or simply declares such theorizing is not properly the object of science.

Genuine scientific truth has declared the Stellar and Darwin Evolution gig is over...we know that Stellar and Darwin Evolution is error parading in scientific guise, but some won't hear it.

.................

Here you hurl the charge of totalitarianism at the Catholic Church. well, here's what I say to that. There is an exercise of power to which no reasonable objection can be raised, as it only furthers liberty and human dignity and it is the totalitarianism of the one and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords as the Lord God is omnipotent. This totalitarian principle that abides in its fullness in God, may be and has been delegated by God to certain personages, particularly His priests. First the Mosaic Law was in keeping with the priestly sons of Levi and the judges who exercised the authority to show the truth of the judgment that the Jews were compelled to obey or die. Now, the exercise of this delegated power ceased with Christ and the institution of the more perfect priesthood that displaced the Levitical priesthood. But who, save ignorant anti-Catholic or blasphemous persons would question the right of Christ to say, "I am the way, and the truth and the life"? Who can question the right of Christ to set aside and to enlarge the pronouncements of Moses and to declare as He did in His sermon on the Mount, "You have heard it said of old....But I say"? etc.

Who is this "I"? The "I" of the prophets is God. We long ago concluded that if God the Father could delegate His Authority to the Levitical priesthood, then Christ, Who is one with God could delegate His authority to HIs lawfully ordained priesthood in the New Covenant to infallibly teach, judge, and govern in matters of faith and morals and to command us to "hear the Church" or to suffer condemnation for not doing so.  This Christ did when He established His Church that was made up in the beginning of an Apostolic society in which St. Peter, Christ's vicar was the supreme earthly authority. To designate the exercise of Christ delegated authority by the bishops of the CC who are successors to the Apostles and the priests as "totalitarianism" in the derogatory sense of the term is to offend the Giver of that power, Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Anyway, Catholics might feel honored to have their Church singled out as totalitarian were the term not used in the derogatory sense, though the term authoritative is preferable for she is the only Church that speaks authoritatively in the name of Christ.   

But what's most important is that the authority exercised by the CC which is limited to matters of faith and morals, comes from Christ, who is God.It is exercised through moral suasion and not by the use of force. That's why the CC can say with her Founder, "My teachings are not My own, but His who sent Me."

Here are the definitions of Darwin Evolution I gave earlier in the discussion.

This definition is dysfunctional and is false because it posits species change beyond kind. Through Microbiology and Genetics we now know with complete certainty that the message sequences of DNA is designed to allow only change within kind. In other words, reptiles could never evolve into birds or fish into amphibians or ape into man. Darwin didn't know it at the time of the 1800s when the theory was formulated, but we know now that change beyond kind is genetically impossible to occur.

................

I've also seen Stellar Evolution described as Cosmic Evolution or Cosmic maturation. It's the theory of the origin of the universe based on the premise that nothing exploded into 2 elements hydrogen and helium and over billions of years produced a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, including the earth, and moons all orbiting in perfect balance and order.

...............

Based on Scripture and Science that I have already described until I'm blue in the face, I think the Earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.

Just listen to you....."Until there is time for evolution"...is the oddest thing to say. Long ages even into trillions of years cannot produce Stellar or Darwin Evolution. Time can't change elements into rocks or invent organisms or cause the moon to orbit the earth. The truth is the longer the time, the greater the decay.   

Real time versus theory time. This millions and billions of years talk just doesn't fit with the scientific facts. C'mon..think this through...if humans have been here for millions of years, as theorized by evolutionists, then we should have thousands of fossils and written records that go back at least half of that time and yet, our history only goes back several thousand years.

And you never will have all the details worked out because natural selection is not evolution. New, higher genetic information is not gained but instead tends to be lost at best. Natural selection only conserves existing genetic information in life forms. Darwin did his famous study on bird beaks and true he found that different birds had different beaks, but they were all still birds in the end, none of them evolved into a different species.

Natural selection was first thought to be the mechanism for Darwin Evolution (change beyond kind) to occur, but it isn't and honest scientists know and will admit that. That's why the Darwin Evolution theorists keep postulating evidence and failing to find it, move on to other postulates such as mutations, etc.). This is not Science. This is parading a materialist philosophical myth. 

If by "biological evolution" you mean microevolution or small change within kind, then I agree 100%. In truth, small change over time within kind isn't evolution but simply variety within kind.

But I've seen "biological evolution" described as macroevolution or Darwin Evolution (change beyond kind) and that is not a fact and not Science.

Hey, GFTess, got a bit of Irish in you?

The age of the Earth is 4.45 ± 0.05 billion years (± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. What do you offer to this discussion besides it just cannot be true?

PS – don’t waste your time with your scripture mumbo-jumbo, you have much bigger problems to contend with.

Lula offered several scientific evidences of a young earth.  Why are you still asking her to do so as if she didn't?

The definitions are for Darwin Evolution....I usually shorten it to "change beyond kind" because that's what DE is.  "Kind" in the science world is species. So for your benefit Darwin Evolution would be defined as "change beyond species over long periods of time". But what's the use? Why keep up the masquerade as though this was true science? We know now with all certainty that DE, "Change beyond kind", has never occurred, is not occurring and can never occur. We know that DE never occurred, is not occurring, and can never occur through the discoveries of Science, namely the message sequencing of our DNA which is designed to allow only change within species. In other words, in nature man is a kind and apes are a different kind. In nature, the two will never mate and be able to produce offspring and create a new species as in ape-man that all science textbooks like to depict to trick children into believing they evolved from apes. Why is there not ever been an ape-man?  Because DNA is a barrier which prohibits it.

We call change beyond kind Darwin Evolution for a reason..from his own words from his book "The Descent of Man," 2nd ed. Collier & Son. 1905. ....There can, consequently, hardly be a doubt that man is an offshoot from the Old World Simian stem; and that, he must be classed with the Catarrhine division. (Vol.I, pg. 205. "The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hiar, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed, and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles.... The foot was then prehensile, judging from the condition of the great toe in the foetus; and our progenitors no doubt, were arboreal in their habits, and frequented some warm, forest-clad land" page 214. "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World monkey and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded. (pg. 220). "Man, as I have attempted to show, is certainly descended from some ape-like creature."pg.759.

Well, this is the lie, the big lie Evolutionists are selling "as fact", when it is now certainly empirically scientifically known through DNA that no such thing ever happened, is happening or could ever happen.

Earlier you spoke of us believing in right and wrong and this is a sure case of an educational wrong, and a big wrong being perpetuated upon innocent unwary, uncritical school children. Their textbooks teach this lie as though it was a proven scientific fact. 

You are an adult and if you want to continue to believe the Darwin Evolution lie is scientific fact, then that's one thing; but, it's time school children are taught only scientific truth, not materialistic philosophical lies masqueraded as fact. A whole age of scientific endeavor was wasted chasing a phantom and teaching DE as fact is tantamount to child abuse.

Simply put: the science of Molecular Genetics proves Darwin and his followers are wrong on all counts....and subsequently Evolution Theory should be thrown in the dustbin. Even if they were up the time to trillions  of years, there are no progressive changes from fish to amphibians, reptiles to mammals to man. Man never ever evolved from apes..DNA is what tells us so and that is why the closer one looks for evidence of Darwin Evolution, the less one finds of substance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_genetics

PS – I am not going to go out and buy any books for this waste of time, so point me to something online at least.

It is from the field of Molecular Genetics that we have learned much about DNA that totally spoils Darwin Evolution, change beyond kind. Here is a site that explains DNA and it's complexity. The last part of it pretty much explains what I've been saying here. The intricate design of DNA code barrier allows dog-kind to only produce dog-kind or ape-kind to only produce ape-kind, etc. etc. etc.

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm

PS. If you care to pursue your study further, no need to buy books, just go to your local library and if they don't have the book, they'll find it via interlibrary loan.

......................

In 173, You highlighted "scientific evidences" as if Jythier doesn't know them when they are clearly pointed out and fluffed them off as my "misguided and unsubstantiated prattling".  This only goes to show it is you, my dear, who does not to know scientific evidences when they are presented.

The decay and reversal of the Earth's magnetic field, the low concentration of Helium in the atmosphere, the existence of Polonium radiohalos are scientific evidences that totally refute the Evolutionist's false claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And the existence of DNA in every living organism refutes Darwin's follower' claim of Evolution, change beyond kind. 

Jythier asked you a simple question that is germane to the discussion.  Of course I realize this is your blog and it is up to you as to how you will respond. I think it is useful to discuss differences and for that reason I've enjoyed participating. But, for some reason you keep ratcheting up your incivility and this latest reply to him goes too far.

It's clear that instead of personally attacking us and our religion, you would be wise to pursue studying those scientific evidences that show Darwin Evolution theory to be the lie that it is.  

Sadly, I doubt that you will because Stellar and Darwin Evolution is now an official dogma of Atheism, is loved and needed so much because its adherents think it disproves the existence of God, and gives them a weapon to purposefully deceive many children into thinking God didn't create them, that they are no more than animals and evolved from apes.   

I've said just about all I plan to here.