Here are some of the sources given starting from the beginning of the site's articles:
http://www.kjvbible.org/greenland_ice_sheet.html * multiple souces given
 Source: Discover Magazine April 2004, page 11, "What's in a Gallon of Gas?"
There are other sources quoted with no website links and some sources given require a subscription to read the entier article, etc. Point being, you are making a false statement...whether you are stating that out of ignorance of not reading or lying, is up to you to explain.
I read the main page you sent me, I have not read all the sub-pages, which I understood from what you wrote were not relevant. That's why I didn't find any sources.
I'm not yet sure if I'm goign to read them, simply because I'm not sure if I'm willing to spend that much time on it.
I stand by my statement that the main page/first page is poorly sourced, when it makes scientific claims but does not contain one single resource to any scientific work supporting the claims.
You see references to Bible sources because he is trying to give evidence of what is written in the Bible. That should be a simple concept to understand and accept.
It is, it was more of a problem if there were only
Bible references (as on the main page).
To these two statements:
His subject is about geology and the age of the earth in relation to what is written in the Bible. His field of study is not biology but I don't see where it would be needed for what he was writing about.
That's not what I think or what the website asserts. http://www.kjvbible.org/death_of_the_ancient_world.html
Because he touches biology many times. Here's one example from the very start of a page you linked to
"The geologic and fossil records are the surviving evidence, written in stone, that testify to the truth that the Earth is very old and was populated long before the seven days of Genesis chapter one. But does that record provide evidence of the sudden end of the old world by a universal destructive event before the seven days and before Noah's flood?
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2 KJV)
This certainly would appear to be the case."
It goes on to say:
"This little-known evidence ["animal-cemeteries" all over the planet indicating a global mass extinction a few thousand years ago] was documented by many back in the 19th century, but this evidence was mostly ignored by the leading scientists of the day because it did not fit into the prevailing scientific paradigm. This evidence is still mostly ignored today, although the Young Earth Creationists have seized upon it as proof of Noah's flood. It is actually proof of the flood which happened just before the time of Genesis 1:2, the time when all life on the surface of the Earth had been wiped out."
So life became completely extinct between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and then God created all of it again?
Then I don't really see the great thing about the creation event, if everything existed already for billions of years and God just exterminated it, just to create it all again shortly after.
I also notice how the length of the time gap has no basis in what The Bible itself says at all. This interpretation is really just one big ad hoc to "evidence" I have yet to read, but which I highly doubt at this point. In any case, even if the "evidence" said there was such an event, The Bible is still so vague that you could never conclude that from The Bible itself.
Sounds like dogma to me versus science.
Exactly... Denying molecular evidence - DNA data stored on computers, which forms nested hieracies
exactly as we would suspect when life evolved from common ancestors, even despite the fact that the vast majority of the human genetic code is not used for making any proteins at all, and about 20% is never even transcribed into RNA. Any denial of this can hardly be based on anything else than dogma, just like the denial of vestigal organs - really, just what was God doing there?http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm
Or take a look at ring species
, or the extensive fossil record which the site apparently doesn't deny. I have yet to read all of it to see how it makes sense out of accepting the fossil record but denying evolution, but maybe it'll be some good entertainment one day, even despite the fact that the fossil record is absolutely not the strongest evidence for evolution, which many young Earth creationists like to take on when pointing out all the "gaps", which they haven't realized the number of increases the more fossils we find.
I obviously didn't make myself clear. Let me try again. Ignorance of the Bible is the cause of some theist's assertion that the universe is 6,000+ years old to argue for...Ignorance of the Bible is the cause of why some atheists make the same assertion from which to argue against. IOW, both groups are ignorant of what the Bible states is the age of the universe.
So what does The Bible say about the age of the universe? Does any verse say 13.7 billion years?
All those ad hoc "reasonings" trying to interpret vague Bible verses to make them sound like they support current science are pathetic. You can look up Genesis 1:2 and seeing that Earth "was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." You can then say that it clearly refers to x or y or z disaster in the past, but it is so vague that you can make it refer to pretty much anything you want.
It's not ignorance of The Bible, but ignorance of evidence
which makes them believe that the universe is 6000 years old, deny evolution, geology, astronomy, etc.
And sorry about missing some of your posts.
Nothing new under the sun.
"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being."
I said in most cases. If someone claims humanity and Earth were created by a god within the last 10000 years, I don't feel sorry for calling them stupid. Creationism in the broadest sense, as I see it, claims
a) the universe was created by a supernatural being 13.7 billion years ago in The Big Bang, which I have yet to see evidence for was caused by a god, but which I think people can believe without being stupid.
b) life was created by a supernatural being in its most simple form about 3.7 billion years ago. Considering we have a good understanding of how cells work and good explanations for how it could arise naturally (abiogenesis, chemistry is apparently "magic" compared to someone creating all the animals, and a woman from a rib), it seems completely redundant to include a god into this, but I still wouldn't go as far as to call people who think that stupid.
c) Earth was created by a supernatural being 4.5 billion years ago. Again, I think it formed naturally from a protoplanetary disc, but if people really insist on invoking magic here, I wouldn't go as far as to call all of them stupid.
d) humanity was created by a supernatural being. This is a denial of the history of life, and it is just plain stupid in my opinion. I don't feel the slightest sorry to say that.
So you think it's easier to justify the existence of a car versus the much more complicated Engineer?
No, because engineers are a product of evolution, which allows a slow, gradual accumulation of complexity over many generations. One thing I think is interesting about the idea of a multiverse is that the universes could undergo a similar process, like if they give birth to new universes (maybe by being cyclic for example). All of the universes could also be completely random, and we'd still end up with an infinite amount of habitable universes.
It's not impossible a god could be the product of a process equivilant to evolution, but until someone can come up with such a process which would make any sense, I think I'll stick to the multiverse idea and stand by my statement that it is harder to justify the existence of.
...still...simply moves the question "where did the multiverses come from?"
True. I think a likely explanation is quantum fluctuations, which is possible if the total energy is zero (as us the case in our universe, which is flat, according to WMAP with an error margin of 0,5%: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
The fact that any good god used physical laws like these instead of magic capable of giving us perfectly good and happy lives seems like a self-contradiction.
If abiogenesis isn't a bonafide example of magic, then nothing is.
That article fails in its very first line:
"Charles Darwin recognised that a basic problem of his theory of evolution was to produce life itself."
No, his theory was a theory about how life evolves
once it exists, not how it came into existence
. The origin of life is irrelevant to evolution - whether the first cell was planted by a god or came about naturally, it could still evolve. It's like saying an umbrella doesn't work because it doesn't predict hurricanes, to quote cdk007 (whose video on abiogenesis I've linked to here several times).
Thus, it is complete nonsense to say "1953 was a landmark year for scientists researching an evolutionary explanation for the appearance of life.". Those who wrote that simply fail to understand what evolution is.
"But, we can ask whether the atmosphere proposed by Miller was likely to be stable."
...We could also ask if any source could produce significant amounts of such gases on the early, geologically very active Earth. Maybe they have heard of volcanos, which produce massive amounts of both ammonia, water vapor and methane.
And about the hydrogen, the decay rate might be overestimated...http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050425165353.htm
So the atmosphere wasn't irrelevant.
"Where would the cooling systems have been that are needed to isolate the products and protect them from further reaction? What was the source of energy?"
I'm wondering if you even watched the video I liked to. It explains well how the most primitive cells could have used hydrothermal vents.
"Miller used electrical discharges and compared them to lightning. But the intensities required would be far greater than those experienced today."
Even if hydrothermal vents were not the source of energy, but lightning, this wrongly assumes that the intensity of lightning was the same on the young Earth as it is today.
"In any process that leads to complexity there must be an information source."
Just like in snowflakes.
"The problem is that enzymes are proteins themselves, and they need enzymes to form themselves!"
I don't think early life started out with proteins either at all... Ribozymes are RNA, which can both store information and act as enzymes. A primitive version of them consisting of a few nucleotides could work well as a replacement for the earliest proteins. Anything acting as an enzyme which could increase the rate of any beneficial reaction would be selected for, whether it makes the reaction occur ten times faster or a billion times.
"Consider a cell containing just 124 proteins. Professor Morowitz has calculated that the chance of all these forming without information input is 1 in 10100,000,000
. One of the smallest known genomes is that of Mycoplasma genitalium which manufactures about 600 proteins, so what are the chances of that happening without intelligent input? Humans have about 100,000 proteins."
It mentions several calculations, one of them is about the formation of RNA. I did not find any source to those calculations else than names, but I'd like to know the details on those calculations.
"The first “ribo-organism” would need all the cell’s metabolic functions in order to survive and the is not evidence that such a range of functions is possible for RNA."
But if it is based on this ignorant assumption, never mind...
"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation."
Again a major flaw in this page... Confusing spontaneous generation with the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation has been dead in the scientific community for centuries.
"Prof Francis Crick, who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.”
And the useage of "accidental", which is a negative word, just points out how biased this "intelligent design" page is some more... I feel sorry for them if they don't consider the emergence of life a good thing, or at least just neutral.
Condemning abiogenesis as magic based on that site is also ignorant of all science after that experiment. Plenty of research has been done since, for example at the Szostak Laboratory:http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/index.html
I think denying abiogenesis on this attempt to refute this experiment is as stupid as denying that we could ever fly to the Moon based on the fact that the first aircraft couldn't do it.