What have you got, what is your best evidence for evolution or old earth theory?
Fossil records? Geological layers? What do you guys want to talk about?
I'll let you guys fire first, but I'd like to talk about methods of dating the earth, fraudulent claims by evolutionists, and a few major flaws in both evolution and old earth theories.
Or you can just flame and ban me.
Okay, evos'
Let's get down right retarded.
What have you got, what is your best evidence for evolution or old earth theory?
Fossil records? Geological layers? What do you guys want to talk about?
I'll let you guys fire first, but I'd like to talk about methods of dating the earth, fraudulent claims by evolutionists, and a few major flaws in both evolution and old earth theories.
The picture shows a Human forearm, the radius bone and the ulna bone. Then it show similiar bones (and not so similiar bones) in different animals.
The theory of evolution explain this (and many other similarities) by saying those two bones evolved from a Common ancestor.
The theory of Creation just points to a common Creator or Designer. It's not that God ran out of Ideas. God didn't need anymore ideas. If you actually study the muscles and the bones in the hands and forearms it's really amazing how everything works together to give us the range of motion that we have. I don't believe evolution explains that kind of complexity at all.
I work as a civil engineer and I do the same thing everyday. I have a site I have to design, so I go back to the same methods I used before, we call it cookie cutter design. Look at any car. Every year thousands of engineers are working to design new and different cars, yet they all come out with 4 wheels.
Unfortunetly similarities or differences don't help prove evolution or creation. It's equal weight. Common ancestor versus Common designer
The picture shows a Human forearm, the radius bone and the ulna bone. Then it show similiar bones (and not so similiar bones) in different animals.
The theory of evolution explain this (and many other similarities) by saying those two bones evolved from a [b]Common[/b] ancestor.
The theory of Creation just points to a [b]common[/b] Creator or Designer. It's not that God ran out of Ideas. God didn't need anymore ideas. If you actually study the muscles and the bones in the hands and forearms it's really amazing how everything works together to give us the range of motion that we have. I don't believe evolution explains that kind of complexity at all.
I work as a civil engineer and I do the same thing everyday. I have a site I have to design, so I go back to the same methods I used before, we call it cookie cutter design. Look at any car. Every year thousands of engineers are working to design new and different cars, yet they all come out with 4 wheels.
Unfortunetly similarities or differences don't help prove evolution or creation. It's equal weight. [b]Common[/b] ancestor versus [b]Common[/b] designer
4jacks wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 8:48am : The picture shows a Human forearm, the radius bone and the ulna bone. Then it show similiar bones (and not so similiar bones) in different animals.
The theory of evolution explain this (and many other similarities) by saying those two bones evolved from a Common ancestor.
The theory of Creation just points to a common Creator or Designer. It's not that God ran out of Ideas. God didn't need anymore ideas. If you actually study the muscles and the bones in the hands and forearms it's really amazing how everything works together to give us the range of motion that we have. I don't believe evolution explains that kind of complexity at all.
I work as a civil engineer and I do the same thing everyday. I have a site I have to design, so I go back to the same methods I used before, we call it cookie cutter design. Look at any car. Every year thousands of engineers are working to design new and different cars, yet they all come out with 4 wheels.
Unfortunetly similarities or differences don't help prove evolution or creation. It's equal weight. Common ancestor versus Common designer
The majority of the bones in the whales arm are a waste of the protein/carbon (I don't actually know the chemical composition of bones, apoligies) a not so perfect design for a perfect designer. Evolution explains this by the fact that whales evolved from large bovine creatures, explaining why they are mammals.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-07-24 08:48:42']The picture shows a Human forearm, the radius bone and the ulna bone. Then it show similiar bones (and not so similiar bones) in different animals.
The theory of evolution explain this (and many other similarities) by saying those two bones evolved from a [b]Common[/b] ancestor.
The theory of Creation just points to a [b]common[/b] Creator or Designer. It's not that God ran out of Ideas. God didn't need anymore ideas. If you actually study the muscles and the bones in the hands and forearms it's really amazing how everything works together to give us the range of motion that we have. I don't believe evolution explains that kind of complexity at all.
I work as a civil engineer and I do the same thing everyday. I have a site I have to design, so I go back to the same methods I used before, we call it cookie cutter design. Look at any car. Every year thousands of engineers are working to design new and different cars, yet they all come out with 4 wheels.
Unfortunetly similarities or differences don't help prove evolution or creation. It's equal weight. [b]Common[/b] ancestor versus [b]Common[/b] designer[/QUOTE]
The majority of the bones in the whales arm are a waste of the protein/carbon (I don't actually know the chemical composition of bones, apoligies) a not so perfect design for a perfect designer. Evolution explains this by the fact that whales evolved from large bovine creatures, explaining why they are mammals.
Encyclopedia wrote on Jul 25th, 2008 at 8:34am : The majority of the bones in the whales arm are a waste of the protein/carbon (I don't actually know the chemical composition of bones, apoligies) a not so perfect design for a perfect designer. Evolution explains this by the fact that whales evolved from large bovine creatures, explaining why they are mammals.
The only Bone in a Whale that I know of that Evolutionist consider to be such a waste is this little bone.
It was claimed to be "Evolutionary Leftovers" I believe this is what you are referring to.
It has since been proven that it is a necessary bone for whales to have sex. So that has been debunked. If you know of other Bones in whales, I could look into them. But in all reality we know very little about whales. They are just to hard to study, and being that I don't find them all too interesting, I don't keep up with what is current on the research.
I don't understand how the question of why Whales are mammals relates to the subject. There are a lot stranger animals then a mammal in the water.
Speaking of "Evolutionary Leftovers" To the best of my knowledge all the claims of evolutionary leftovers in Humans have been debunked. The appendix was one, the pinkie toe was another, the coxyy was one. All have been shown to have valid functions. All with the exception of Male Nipples. I don't think anyone will ever be able to really answer the Question of Why Males have Nipples!
Thanks for not flaming me by the way.
[QUOTE u='Encyclopedia' d='2008-07-25 08:34:56'] The majority of the bones in the whales arm are a waste of the protein/carbon (I don't actually know the chemical composition of bones, apoligies) a not so perfect design for a perfect designer. Evolution explains this by the fact that whales evolved from large bovine creatures, explaining why they are mammals.[/QUOTE]
The only Bone in a Whale that I know of that Evolutionist consider to be such a waste is this little bone.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/WHL_TH03.JPG
It was claimed to be "Evolutionary Leftovers" I believe this is what you are referring to.
It has since been proven that it is a necessary bone for whales to have sex. So that has been debunked. If you know of other Bones in whales, I could look into them. But in all reality we know very little about whales. They are just to hard to study, and being that I don't find them all too interesting, I don't keep up with what is current on the research.
I don't understand how the question of why Whales are mammals relates to the subject. There are a lot stranger animals then a mammal in the water.
Speaking of "Evolutionary Leftovers" To the best of my knowledge all the claims of evolutionary leftovers in Humans have been debunked. The appendix was one, the pinkie toe was another, the coxyy was one. All have been shown to have valid functions. All with the exception of Male Nipples. I don't think anyone will ever be able to really answer the Question of Why Males have Nipples!
Well guys, thanks for hosting me for a little bit.
I think I’ll just skip the big lecture I sometimes give with all my points. I don’t challenge anti-creationist groups to persuade anti-creationists to come to the ‘dark side’, I do it so that at least a single non-retarded creationist voice is heard. The bottom line is that we are all persuaded by our beliefs. Growing up we will either be persuaded by or reject our parents religious beliefs. In school we will all be persuaded by the beliefs of the teachers we admire. We are all influenced by others.
The evolution versus creation isn’t an easy clean cut debate. There are arguments on both sides, solid valid intelligent arguments. And there are responses to those arguments on both sides as well, solid valid intelligent arguments. Our beliefs will always skew our minds to believe the side we want to believe. Of course we only pin this argument on the Other side and do not attribute it to ourselves. To you, I only believe in creation, because I’m a Christian. To me, you only believe in evolution because you don’t want to face the fact that there is a God.
But it’s important for anyone who might read this thread to know that answers are out there. It would be very difficult for a member of this group to post an argument for evolution that I could not respond to. And it’s not because I’m really smart, it’s just because I have access to a lot of people who are, and this is a subject I’m interested in and I have spent a few years doing this.
Well take care, Anyone can reach me by email at 4jacks at gmail dot com. I’ll be glad to answer any questions, Especially if you’re a Christian and just want answers, but I don’t debate via email, it’s kinda pointless.
Well guys, thanks for hosting me for a little bit.
I think I’ll just skip the big lecture I sometimes give with all my points. I don’t challenge anti-creationist groups to persuade anti-creationists to come to the ‘dark side’, I do it so that at least a single non-retarded creationist voice is heard. The bottom line is that we are all persuaded by our beliefs. Growing up we will either be persuaded by or reject our parents religious beliefs. In school we will all be persuaded by the beliefs of the teachers we admire. We are all influenced by others.
The evolution versus creation isn’t an easy clean cut debate. There are arguments on both sides, solid valid intelligent arguments. And there are responses to those arguments on both sides as well, solid valid intelligent arguments. Our beliefs will always skew our minds to believe the side we want to believe. Of course we only pin this argument on the Other side and do not attribute it to ourselves. To you, I only believe in creation, because I’m a Christian. To me, you only believe in evolution because you don’t want to face the fact that there is a God.
But it’s important for anyone who might read this thread to know that answers are out there. It would be very difficult for a member of this group to post an argument for evolution that I could not respond to. And it’s not because I’m really smart, it’s just because I have access to a lot of people who are, and this is a subject I’m interested in and I have spent a few years doing this.
Well take care, Anyone can reach me by email at 4jacks at gmail dot com. I’ll be glad to answer any questions, Especially if you’re a Christian and just want answers, but I don’t debate via email, it’s kinda pointless.
I'd like you to genuinely, honestly, post evidence for creation.
Something that cannot be explain in any other way.
When you're evidence outwieghs that which supports evolution then will I accept creation as plausible.
So far, after much searching, I've found nothing to suggest that anything is more likely to be created by supernatural means than by the processes of evolution and abiogenesis.
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
You don't need to find flaws in evolution, or fraudulent claims. All you need is solid evidence for creation.
Also, Take this to the evolution/creationism thread.
Virtually no one uses this group.
I'd like you to genuinely, honestly, post evidence for creation.
Something that cannot be explain in any other way.
When you're evidence outwieghs that which supports evolution then will I accept creation as plausible.
So far, after much searching, I've found nothing to suggest that anything is more likely to be created by supernatural means than by the processes of evolution and abiogenesis.
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
You don't need to find flaws in evolution, or fraudulent claims. All you need is solid evidence for creation.
Also, Take this to the evolution/creationism thread.
Rizo, There are honestly only two intelligent options available to us.
1) We evolved over Hundreds of Millions of Years.
2) We were Created.
Disproving One, by default, for our purposes proves the other.
As a Young Earth Creationist The arguement will always come down to the age of the earth and the methods of dating the earth. If I prove to you the world can not be older than X number of years, then I win. If you prove to me that the earth can not be younger than X number of Years, then you win.
Here are some facts that lead toward the conclusion that the earth is much younger than the 4.5 billion years that Evolutionist believe it to be.
1) The moon is going further away from us each year. 3+cm per year. Which means it was closer. Go Back even 100,000 years and it would be so close that the earth wouldn't be suitable for life.
2) All evidence we have shows Neptune is cooling off. If it's 4.5 billion years old it should have reach equilibrium a long time ago.
3) The earth is still loosing radiation. (We gain it from the sun and lose it to the atomosphere) Once again, we should have reached equilibruim.
Now lets look at some dating methods for the earth.
1) Deserts - The Saraha Desert is the largest desert in the World. All deserts grow in size. The Saraha Desert is about 4,000-5,000 years old.
2) Coral Reef - The Great Barrier reef. Once again, coral reefs grow. (When we don't kill them) Although some people try to SAY it's 2 million years old, if you look at the rate of growth and go backwards it's more like 10,000.
While these don't necessarily prove the earth is young. They prove that something substancial happened at those times to completely change the environment of the world. Unfortunetly the evolutionary time line really needs that time to be happy happy fun fun evolving at full capacity time. There is no room for earth shattering events 5k and 10k years ago.
Everything I listed is Highly talked about on different evolution versus creation website and most of it verifiable just by googling the info. But you can email me if you have any questions.
I'm not too familiar with the evolution/creationism thread. If It's really active, I probably could not keep up. Feel free to quote me or email me if you have any questions though. 4jacks at gmail dot com
Rizo, There are honestly only two intelligent options available to us.
1) We evolved over Hundreds of Millions of Years.
2) We were Created.
Disproving One, by default, for our purposes proves the other.
As a Young Earth Creationist The arguement will always come down to the age of the earth and the methods of dating the earth. If I prove to you the world can not be older than X number of years, then I win. If you prove to me that the earth can not be younger than X number of Years, then you win.
Here are some facts that lead toward the conclusion that the earth is much younger than the 4.5 billion years that Evolutionist believe it to be.
1) The moon is going further away from us each year. 3+cm per year. Which means it was closer. Go Back even 100,000 years and it would be so close that the earth wouldn't be suitable for life.
2) All evidence we have shows Neptune is cooling off. If it's 4.5 billion years old it should have reach equilibrium a long time ago.
3) The earth is still loosing radiation. (We gain it from the sun and lose it to the atomosphere) Once again, we should have reached equilibruim.
Now lets look at some dating methods for the earth.
1) Deserts - The Saraha Desert is the largest desert in the World. All deserts grow in size. The Saraha Desert is about 4,000-5,000 years old.
2) Coral Reef - The Great Barrier reef. Once again, coral reefs grow. (When we don't kill them) Although some people try to SAY it's 2 million years old, if you look at the rate of growth and go backwards it's more like 10,000.
While these don't necessarily prove the earth is young. They prove that something substancial happened at those times to completely change the environment of the world. Unfortunetly the evolutionary time line really needs that time to be happy happy fun fun evolving at full capacity time. There is no room for earth shattering events 5k and 10k years ago.
Everything I listed is Highly talked about on different evolution versus creation website and most of it verifiable just by googling the info. But you can email me if you have any questions.
I'm not too familiar with the evolution/creationism thread. If It's really active, I probably could not keep up. Feel free to quote me or email me if you have any questions though. 4jacks at gmail dot com
Well, firstly, you greatly misunderstand how science works. Scientists don't seek to disprove anything. You can't disprove that there isn't a green mouse in your house because no matter where you look I can say it's just some where else. Therefore it's up to me to prove there is a green mouse because all I have to do then is to find a single green mouse.
A stupid analogy but an important one because it exactly mirrors the creation vs science argument. At any point, if shown wrong, a creationist argument can simply change to the old argument of "God did it, you need faith,".
I tend to focus on biology so I'm no expert at answering these kinds of claims but I'll do my best. If I can't answer something fully it doesn't mean that there is no answer.
Any way to your arguments.
The moon is receding argument (Very old,very debunked):
1. The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.
2. The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).
3. The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.
4. The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth.
Neputune:
Neptune's more varied weather when compared to Uranus is believed to be due in part to its higher internal heat. Although Neptune lies half again as far from the Sun as Uranus, and receives only 40% its amount of sunlight, the two planets' surface temperatures are roughly equal. The upper regions of Neptune's troposphere reach a low temperature of −221.4 °C (51.7 K). At a depth where the atmospheric pressure equals 1 bar, the temperature is −201.15 °C (72.0 K).Deeper inside the layers of gas, however, the temperature rises steadily. As with Uranus, the source of this heating is unknown, but the discrepancy is larger: Uranus only radiates 1.1 times as much energy as it receives from the Sun;[80] Neptune radiates about 2.61 times as much, which means the internal heat source generates 161% of the solar input.Neptune is the farthest planet from the Sun, yet its internal energy is sufficient to drive the fastest planetary winds seen in the Solar System. Several possible explanations have been suggested, including radiogenic heating from the planet's core,[dissociation of methane into hydrocarbon chains under atmospheric pressure, and convection in the lower atmosphere that causes gravity waves to break above the tropopause.
i.e. It generates heat itself and it's foolish to use it in an argument until we are fully aware of the how and why. Otherwise its just a green mouse argument.
Earth radiation:
I've never heard this one before and I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by radiation. Do you mean heat that has radiated to earth or ionising radiation.
Either way around, the idea that they should in any way be at equilibrium is a fallacy. There are a lot more factors to consider, ie radon in the atmosphere, radioactive materials all over the place here on earth, geometric fields and cosmic radiation from sources outside of the solar system for a few.
As for heat, there are also many factors, the sun's output isn't always the same and the levels of green house gasses can (obviously) effect the amount of heat that is released by the atmosphere.
The saharah dessert is expanding:
Yes it is. Well done. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the age of the earth.
Coral:
The oldest coral reefs are 2million or so years old. This is not a
Well, firstly, you greatly misunderstand how science works. Scientists don't seek to disprove anything. You can't disprove that there isn't a green mouse in your house because no matter where you look I can say it's just some where else. Therefore it's up to me to prove there is a green mouse because all I have to do then is to find a single green mouse.
A stupid analogy but an important one because it exactly mirrors the creation vs science argument. At any point, if shown wrong, a creationist argument can simply change to the old argument of "God did it, you need faith,".
I tend to focus on biology so I'm no expert at answering these kinds of claims but I'll do my best. If I can't answer something fully it doesn't mean that there is no answer.
Any way to your arguments.
The moon is receding argument (Very old,very debunked):
1. The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.
2. The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).
3. The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.
4. The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth.
Neputune:
Neptune's more varied weather when compared to Uranus is believed to be due in part to its higher internal heat. Although Neptune lies half again as far from the Sun as Uranus, and receives only 40% its amount of sunlight, the two planets' surface temperatures are roughly equal. The upper regions of Neptune's troposphere reach a low temperature of −221.4 °C (51.7 K). At a depth where the atmospheric pressure equals 1 bar, the temperature is −201.15 °C (72.0 K).Deeper inside the layers of gas, however, the temperature rises steadily. As with Uranus, the source of this heating is unknown, but the discrepancy is larger: Uranus only radiates 1.1 times as much energy as it receives from the Sun;[80] Neptune radiates about 2.61 times as much, which means the internal heat source generates 161% of the solar input.Neptune is the farthest planet from the Sun, yet its internal energy is sufficient to drive the fastest planetary winds seen in the Solar System. Several possible explanations have been suggested, including radiogenic heating from the planet's core,[dissociation of methane into hydrocarbon chains under atmospheric pressure, and convection in the lower atmosphere that causes gravity waves to break above the tropopause.
i.e. It generates heat itself and it's foolish to use it in an argument until we are fully aware of the how and why. Otherwise its just a green mouse argument.
Earth radiation:
I've never heard this one before and I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by radiation. Do you mean heat that has radiated to earth or ionising radiation.
Either way around, the idea that they should in any way be at equilibrium is a fallacy. There are a lot more factors to consider, ie radon in the atmosphere, radioactive materials all over the place here on earth, geometric fields and cosmic radiation from sources outside of the solar system for a few.
As for heat, there are also many factors, the sun's output isn't always the same and the levels of green house gasses can (obviously) effect the amount of heat that is released by the atmosphere.
The saharah dessert is expanding:
Yes it is. Well done. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the age of the earth.
Coral:
The oldest coral reefs are 2million or so years old. This is not a
Rizo, You can call your green mouse analogy scientific if you want to. But it just isn't logical, and it doesn't apply.
The origins of the world have been so highly debated and thought about so much, and we only have two intelligent options to choose from. Do you agree with that statement?
Back to the Moon.
Just do the Math. Your Numbers, 3.8cm per year, moon is 385,000km. That means 4.5 billion years ago the moon was almost 45% closer to the earth. Everyone knows that is undoable.
Your Pangea theory is nice. It's better than when they tried to say that the magnetic poles were reversing so the moon would get further away and then come back closer. But Pangea is also a "Green Mouse". It's an idea that the continents slowly drifted away from each other as if they were Islands. If you look at one of those globes that shows the lands under the oceans, you see just how crazy the idea is.
Back to Neptune.
Once again this is another Green Mouse. "It must create it's own heat" That is a pretty unlogical assumption that does not come from any data that we have. Look at the data, it's pretty simple, it's loosing heat. Becuase you can come up with any wild theory that MAY otherwise explain it, doesn't make my arguement the green mouse. My arguement is based off what we know. Your arguement looks like the green mouse to me.
Earth Radiation. the sun dumps radioactive particles into our atmosphere at a certain rate. We then loose them into space.
The Desert. (You can remember that Dessert is the after diner snack becuase it has two S's and you want more dessert, but no one wants more Desert)
It doesn't show the age of the earth conclusively, but it does show that something devastating to the earth happen 5k years ago.
You got cut off at the Coral reef, but you were probably going to side with 2 million year old people. Which I think is kinda funny, because you some how used coral being 2 million years old to explain how the 4.5 billion year old moon acted. There is a bit of a gap there. Anyway, I'll try to dig up the Coral Math, it's simple we can do it here.
Rizo, You can call your green mouse analogy scientific if you want to. But it just isn't logical, and it doesn't apply.
The origins of the world have been so highly debated and thought about so much, and we only have two intelligent options to choose from. Do you agree with that statement?
Back to the Moon.
Just do the Math. Your Numbers, 3.8cm per year, moon is 385,000km. That means 4.5 billion years ago the moon was almost 45% closer to the earth. Everyone knows that is undoable.
Your Pangea theory is nice. It's better than when they tried to say that the magnetic poles were reversing so the moon would get further away and then come back closer. But Pangea is also a "Green Mouse". It's an idea that the continents slowly drifted away from each other as if they were Islands. If you look at one of those globes that shows the lands under the oceans, you see just how crazy the idea is.
Back to Neptune.
Once again this is another Green Mouse. "It must create it's own heat" That is a pretty unlogical assumption that does not come from any data that we have. Look at the data, it's pretty simple, it's loosing heat. Becuase you can come up with any wild theory that MAY otherwise explain it, doesn't make my arguement the green mouse. My arguement is based off what we know. Your arguement looks like the green mouse to me.
Earth Radiation. the sun dumps radioactive particles into our atmosphere at a certain rate. We then loose them into space.
The Desert. (You can remember that Dessert is the after diner snack becuase it has two S's and you want more dessert, but no one wants more Desert)
It doesn't show the age of the earth conclusively, but it does show that something devastating to the earth happen 5k years ago.
You got cut off at the Coral reef, but you were probably going to side with 2 million year old people. Which I think is kinda funny, because you some how used coral being 2 million years old to explain how the 4.5 billion year old moon acted. There is a bit of a gap there. Anyway, I'll try to dig up the Coral Math, it's simple we can do it here.
4jacks wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 9:12am : I don’t challenge anti-creationist groups to persuade anti-creationists to come to the ‘dark side’, I do it so that at least a single non-retarded creationist voice is heard.
Not possible.
The evolution versus creation isn’t an easy clean cut debate. There are arguments on both sides, solid valid intelligent arguments. And there are responses to those arguments on both sides as well, solid valid intelligent arguments. Our beliefs will always skew our minds to believe the side we want to believe. Of course we only pin this argument on the Other side and do not attribute it to ourselves. To you, I only believe in creation, because I’m a Christian. To me, you only believe in evolution because you don’t want to face the fact that there is a God.
1)I agree it isn't an easy, clean-cut debate. It isn't a debate at all. There is no question; evolution is a fact.
2)You're an idiot if you think that's why people believe in evolution.
If you complain that I'm being rude, your assertion that I believe in evolution purely to avoid the fact that there is a god is hardly less offensive than anything I have said.
But it’s important for anyone who might read this thread to know that answers are out there. It would be very difficult for a member of this group to post an argument for evolution that I could not respond to. And it’s not because I’m really smart, it’s just because I have access to a lot of people who are, and this is a subject I’m interested in and I have spent a few years doing this.
FOSSILS.
GENETICS.
I win.
Here are some facts that lead toward the conclusion that the earth is much younger than the 4.5 billion years that Evolutionist believe it to be.
1) The moon is going further away from us each year. 3+cm per year. Which means it was closer. Go Back even 100,000 years and it would be so close that the earth wouldn't be suitable for life.
2) All evidence we have shows Neptune is cooling off. If it's 4.5 billion years old it should have reach equilibrium a long time ago.
3) The earth is still loosing radiation. (We gain it from the sun and lose it to the atomosphere) Once again, we should have reached equilibruim.
2)Couldn't find a single source that said Neptune was cooling off.
3)It's called dynamic equilibrium you fuckwit. We gain and lose it at the same rate.
1) Deserts - The Saraha Desert is the largest desert in the World. All deserts grow in size. The Saraha Desert is about 4,000-5,000 years old.
2) Coral Reef - The Great Barrier reef. Once again, coral reefs grow. (When we don't kill them) Although some people try to SAY it's 2 million years old, if you look at the rate of growth and go backwards it's more like 10,000.
Are you sure that deserts always grow? Humans can make them grow and we have been but it is not an intrinsic property of deserts that they always grow.
What a surprise, creationist arguments based on made-up evidence. I can't say I'm all that shocked. Nor am I shocked by your belief that you're smart and educated.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-07-31 09:12:33'] I don’t challenge anti-creationist groups to persuade anti-creationists to come to the ‘dark side’, I do it so that at least a single non-retarded creationist voice is heard. [/quote]
Not possible.
[quote]The evolution versus creation isn’t an easy clean cut debate. There are arguments on both sides, solid valid intelligent arguments. And there are responses to those arguments on both sides as well, solid valid intelligent arguments. Our beliefs will always skew our minds to believe the side we want to believe. Of course we only pin this argument on the Other side and do not attribute it to ourselves. To you, I only believe in creation, because I’m a Christian. To me, you only believe in evolution because you don’t want to face the fact that there is a God. [/quote]
1)I agree it isn't an easy, clean-cut debate. It isn't a debate at all. There is no question; evolution is a fact.
2)You're an idiot if you think that's why people believe in evolution.
If you complain that I'm being rude, your assertion that I believe in evolution purely to avoid the fact that there is a god is hardly less offensive than anything I have said.
[quote]But it’s important for anyone who might read this thread to know that answers are out there. It would be very difficult for a member of this group to post an argument for evolution that I could not respond to. And it’s not because I’m really smart, it’s just because I have access to a lot of people who are, and this is a subject I’m interested in and I have spent a few years doing this. [/quote]
FOSSILS.
GENETICS.
I win.
[quote]Here are some facts that lead toward the conclusion that the earth is much younger than the 4.5 billion years that Evolutionist believe it to be.
1) The moon is going further away from us each year. 3+cm per year. Which means it was closer. Go Back even 100,000 years and it would be so close that the earth wouldn't be suitable for life.
2) All evidence we have shows Neptune is cooling off. If it's 4.5 billion years old it should have reach equilibrium a long time ago.
3) The earth is still loosing radiation. (We gain it from the sun and lose it to the atomosphere) Once again, we should have reached equilibruim.[/quote]
1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
2)Couldn't find a single source that said Neptune was cooling off.
3)It's called dynamic equilibrium you fuckwit. We gain and lose it at the same rate.
[quote]1) Deserts - The Saraha Desert is the largest desert in the World. All deserts grow in size. The Saraha Desert is about 4,000-5,000 years old.
2) Coral Reef - The Great Barrier reef. Once again, coral reefs grow. (When we don't kill them) Although some people try to SAY it's 2 million years old, if you look at the rate of growth and go backwards it's more like 10,000.[/quote]
Are you sure that deserts always grow? Humans can make them grow and we have been but it is not an intrinsic property of deserts that they always grow.
What a surprise, creationist arguments based on made-up evidence. I can't say I'm all that shocked. Nor am I shocked by your belief that you're smart and educated.
4) Under the ocean are tectonic plates. These are masses of rock that are moved around on convection currents in the molten rock below them. There are clearly defined borders between each plate, they can move towards each other and away from each other. When two plates move towards each other one is forced under the other and the friction causes the rocks to melt which forms magma which forces it's self to the surface causing a volcano. This is also how earthquakes are caused. Unless you believe that god makes them when he's angry.
2) God is a green mouse. PROVE ME WRONG. You can't.
3) Meths put this one down quite nicely so I'll just repost it for you. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
4) Under the ocean are tectonic plates. These are masses of rock that are moved around on convection currents in the molten rock below them. There are clearly defined borders between each plate, they can move towards each other and away from each other. When two plates move towards each other one is forced under the other and the friction causes the rocks to melt which forms magma which forces it's self to the surface causing a volcano. This is also how earthquakes are caused. Unless you believe that god makes them when he's angry.
You can read more here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea
5) No source for Neptune.
6) Dynamic equilibrium (thanks for that meths)
7) All it shows is that the sahara desert possibly 5000 years old. (Thankyou for being incredibly patronising over a typo),
Sorry, I didn't mean to be patroising over a typo, I was sincerely trying to be helpful, I'm a dork.
Let's just drop the assumption that anyone over the course of this whole debate ever walks into this who is geniunely un-biased. You can call God a green mouse, just as much as I can call Evolution a green mouse. The whole arguement is stupid, and science shouldn't function that way. We should observe the facts and data that we have and come up with assumptions that fit that. Any time you say "well it could of happened this odd, way, that we don't have any reason to believe" to me that is a green mouse. And I see that all the time with things like neptune, the moon, the desert, for a theory on how old earth theory could maybe be right.
Meths,
How do fossils or genetics prove evolution?
Rizo,
Sorry, I didn't mean to be patroising over a typo, I was sincerely trying to be helpful, I'm a dork.
Let's just drop the assumption that anyone over the course of this whole debate ever walks into this who is geniunely un-biased. You can call God a green mouse, just as much as I can call Evolution a green mouse. The whole arguement is stupid, and science shouldn't function that way. We should observe the facts and data that we have and come up with assumptions that fit that. Any time you say "well it could of happened this odd, way, that we don't have any reason to believe" to me that is a green mouse. And I see that all the time with things like neptune, the moon, the desert, for a theory on how old earth theory could maybe be right.
4jacks wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 1:36pm : The whole arguement is stupid, and science shouldn't function that way. We should observe the facts and data that we have and come up with assumptions that fit that.
Uh huh. That's why Darwin is so famous. He spotted these facts, and the only way to explain them, sparked the paradigm shift away from the commonly accepted literal, biblical creation story to the modern evolutionary theory that we use today.
4jacks wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 1:36pm : Any time you say "well it could of happened this odd, way, that we don't have any reason to believe" to me that is a green mouse. And I see that all the time with things like neptune, the moon, the desert, for a theory on how old earth theory could maybe be right.
It was shown to you how you the things you mentioned didn't contradict an 'old earth'. Why are you still bringing them up?
4jacks wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 1:36pm :
How do fossils or genetics prove evolution?
Fossils. The morpohology of life fits into a nested, chronological hierarchy, which is to be expected if all life shared a common ancestor.
Genetics. The genetic similarities from the simplest creature to the most complex suggest a common ancerstor.
Genetics again. ERVs in specific locations on DNA strands can be used to trace a species lineage. Oddly enough, this fits exactly in the exact same exact nested heirarchy which evolution predicted, the fossil record supports, and the genetic evidence confrims.
Really, how can you explain ERVs in light of creationism?
And that doesn't even scratch the surface of the evidence.
And what of your side? What about the many, many things which we can see today that are impossible to form under a literal biblical framework?
The sheer insantiy of the Deluge creates many, many geological features which cannot have formed under global flood conditions.
I'll start you off. Explain how the White Cliffs of Dover could have formed under the same violent flood conditions which alledgedly formed the Grand Canyon.
You can't. Simple as that. The only alternative is that there was no global flood, ever.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-18 13:36:22']The whole arguement is stupid, and science shouldn't function that way. We should observe the facts and data that we have and come up with assumptions that fit that. [/QUOTE]
Uh huh. That's why Darwin is so famous. He spotted these facts, and the only way to explain them, sparked the paradigm shift away from the commonly accepted literal, biblical creation story to the modern evolutionary theory that we use today.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-18 13:36:22'] Any time you say "well it could of happened this odd, way, that we don't have any reason to believe" to me that is a green mouse. And I see that all the time with things like neptune, the moon, the desert, for a theory on how old earth theory could maybe be right. [/QUOTE]
It was shown to you how you the things you mentioned didn't contradict an 'old earth'. Why are you still bringing them up?
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-18 13:36:22']
How do fossils or genetics prove evolution?[/QUOTE]
Fossils. The morpohology of life fits into a nested, chronological hierarchy, which is to be expected if all life shared a common ancestor.
Genetics. The genetic similarities from the simplest creature to the most complex suggest a common ancerstor.
Genetics again. ERVs in specific locations on DNA strands can be used to trace a species lineage. Oddly enough, this fits exactly in the exact same exact nested heirarchy which evolution predicted, the fossil record supports, and the genetic evidence confrims.
Really, how can you explain ERVs in light of creationism?
And that doesn't even scratch the surface of the evidence.
And what of your side? What about the many, many things which we can see today that are impossible to form under a literal biblical framework?
The sheer insantiy of the Deluge creates many, many geological features which cannot have formed under global flood conditions.
I'll start you off. Explain how the White Cliffs of Dover could have formed under the same violent flood conditions which alledgedly formed the Grand Canyon.
You can't. Simple as that. The only alternative is that there was no global flood, ever.
darthteet wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 9:51pm :
The only alternative is that there was no global flood, ever
I'm glad you agree with the concept that disproving one theory in effect proves the other, unlike rizo. At least we agree on that.
Thanks for the questions, and thanks for not flaming me. I honestly didn't expect to last this long, Such an intolerant group name, but you guys are actually alright.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-18 21:51:23']
The only alternative is that there was no global flood, ever [/QUOTE]
I'm glad you agree with the concept that disproving one theory in effect proves the other, unlike rizo. At least we agree on that.
Thanks for the questions, and thanks for not flaming me. I honestly didn't expect to last this long, Such an intolerant group name, but you guys are actually alright.
darthteet wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 9:51pm : Uh huh. That's why Darwin is so famous. He spotted these facts, and the only way to explain them, sparked the paradigm shift away from the commonly accepted literal, biblical creation story to the modern evolutionary theory that we use today.
Darwin only really noted Micro-Evolution. Which doesn't really contradict creation, and no one is really arguing that.
darthteet wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 9:51pm : It was shown to you how you the things you mentioned didn't contradict an 'old earth'. Why are you still bringing them up?
Nothing was "shown" to me, as you are implying, meaning meths or rizo disproved my points. I made arguments, they made counter arguments. It could literally go on forever. What I was saying in the portion that you quoted me on, was that I viewed their counter arguments as 'green mice' to steal Rizo's analogy.
darthteet wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 9:51pm : Fossils. The morpohology of life fits into a nested, chronological hierarchy, which is to be expected if all life shared a common ancestor.
there are many times when the fossils we find DON'T fit the evolutionary time scale. These finding are routinely discarded, but anyone of them puts a serious crimp in the evolution time line.
darthteet wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 9:51pm :
Genetics. The genetic similarities from the simplest creature to the most complex suggest a common ancerstor.
Genetics again. ERVs in specific locations on DNA strands can be used to trace a species lineage. Oddly enough, this fits exactly in the exact same exact nested heirarchy which evolution predicted, the fossil record supports, and the genetic evidence confrims.
Genetics is really your weakest point to argue. No one can offer any decent explanation on how mutations can INCREASE information. All mutation experiments that we can perform show a LOSS of information. The notion that "Hey, maybe, once in a million years these mutations will INCREASE information" is a Green Mouse (I really like rizo's analogy)
darthteet wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 9:51pm : Really, how can you explain ERVs in light of creationism?
I won't pretend to be an expert on the whole Junk DNA debate currently/recently going on with Mr. Behe and Mr. Miller. I say we let them hash it out, no sense in you and I pretending we know more than them, just because we read their articles.
Personally, I view the topic similar to my second post. Just because you find similarities in different species (DNA or otherwise) doesn't necessarily mean we evolved. Evolution proposes Common Ancestor. Creation proposes Common Designer. Similarities and Differences in species, don't point to one or the other.
darthteet wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 9:51pm : And what of your side? What about the many, many things which we can see today that are impossible to form under a literal biblical framework?
There's a logical answer for any of it.
darthteet wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 9:51pm :
The sheer insantiy of the Deluge creates many, many geological features which cannot have formed under global flood conditions.
And the sheer insanity of the Deluge also creates many many geological features which can not have formed over "billions of years"
IE the grand canyon and trees found standing up straight through millions of years of soil/rock layers.
darthteet wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 9:51pm :
I'll start you off. Explain how the White Cliffs of Dover could have formed under the same violent flood conditions which alledgedly formed the Grand Canyon.
Now what do you suppose it would look like if all that dirt fell into the ocean instead of on the ground?
The Global flood, doesn't have to explain EVERY geological form we have. There has been plenty of time for other geological events since the flood.
Geography is another sore subject for evolution and old earth. All we see around us is EROSION. The high spots are moving to the low spots. You might be able to site little events (earthquakes, etc) that form little tiny mole hills. But the amount of natural Erosion that we witness is undeniable. The high spots are moving to the low spots.
Old Earth Theology needs an explanation for this. (we need another green mouse) So we came up with all this jazz about how Mountains are formed. We have no other reason to believe that mountains are formed like this, other than the fact that we NEED to believe it, if we want to believe
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-18 21:51:23'] Uh huh. That's why Darwin is so famous. He spotted these facts, and the only way to explain them, sparked the paradigm shift away from the commonly accepted literal, biblical creation story to the modern evolutionary theory that we use today.[/quote]
Darwin only really noted Micro-Evolution. Which doesn't really contradict creation, and no one is really arguing that.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-18 21:51:23']It was shown to you how you the things you mentioned didn't contradict an 'old earth'. Why are you still bringing them up? [/quote]
Nothing was "shown" to me, as you are implying, meaning meths or rizo disproved my points. I made arguments, they made counter arguments. It could literally go on forever. What I was saying in the portion that you quoted me on, was that I viewed their counter arguments as 'green mice' to steal Rizo's analogy.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-18 21:51:23']Fossils. The morpohology of life fits into a nested, chronological hierarchy, which is to be expected if all life shared a common ancestor.[/quote]
there are many times when the fossils we find DON'T fit the evolutionary time scale. These finding are routinely discarded, but anyone of them puts a serious crimp in the evolution time line.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-18 21:51:23']
Genetics. The genetic similarities from the simplest creature to the most complex suggest a common ancerstor.
Genetics again. ERVs in specific locations on DNA strands can be used to trace a species lineage. Oddly enough, this fits exactly in the exact same exact nested heirarchy which evolution predicted, the fossil record supports, and the genetic evidence confrims.[/quote]
Genetics is really your weakest point to argue. No one can offer any decent explanation on how mutations can INCREASE information. All mutation experiments that we can perform show a LOSS of information. The notion that "Hey, maybe, once in a million years these mutations will INCREASE information" is a Green Mouse (I really like rizo's analogy)
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-18 21:51:23']Really, how can you explain ERVs in light of creationism?[/quote]
I won't pretend to be an expert on the whole Junk DNA debate currently/recently going on with Mr. Behe and Mr. Miller. I say we let them hash it out, no sense in you and I pretending we know more than them, just because we read their articles.
Personally, I view the topic similar to my second post. Just because you find similarities in different species (DNA or otherwise) doesn't necessarily mean we evolved. Evolution proposes Common Ancestor. Creation proposes Common Designer. Similarities and Differences in species, don't point to one or the other.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-18 21:51:23']And what of your side? What about the many, many things which we can see today that are impossible to form under a literal biblical framework?[/quote]
There's a logical answer for any of it.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-18 21:51:23']
The sheer insantiy of the Deluge creates many, many geological features which cannot have formed under global flood conditions.[/quote]
And the sheer insanity of the Deluge also creates many many geological features which can not have formed over "billions of years"
IE the grand canyon and trees found standing up straight through millions of years of soil/rock layers.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-18 21:51:23']
I'll start you off. Explain how the White Cliffs of Dover could have formed under the same violent flood conditions which alledgedly formed the Grand Canyon.
You can't. Simple as that. [/quote]
Oh Contraire Mon Frier!! (sorry my french sucks)
Here we have the White Cliffs of Dover, very pretty
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/290719612_5a27cbaf61.jpg
Here we have a picture of a Land Slide.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Landslide.jpg/800px-Landslide.jpg
Now what do you suppose it would look like if all that dirt fell into the ocean instead of on the ground?
The Global flood, doesn't have to explain EVERY geological form we have. There has been plenty of time for other geological events since the flood.
Geography is another sore subject for evolution and old earth. All we see around us is EROSION. The high spots are moving to the low spots. You might be able to site little events (earthquakes, etc) that form little tiny mole hills. But the amount of natural Erosion that we witness is undeniable. The high spots are moving to the low spots.
Old Earth Theology needs an explanation for this. (we need another green mouse) So we came up with all this jazz about how Mountains are formed. We have no other reason to believe that mountains are formed like this, other than the fact that we NEED to believe it, if we want to believe
Darwin only really noted Micro-Evolution. Which doesn't really contradict creation, and no one is really arguing that.
One is the other.
Besides. Where do you define the ‘kind’ barrier? Is it at species? Is it at genus? Where? Because we have observed both these types of changes. Both from one species to another and another genus to anther genus. Really, what amount of observed evidence are you willing to accept?
4jacks wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 9:52am :
Nothing was "shown" to me, as you are implying, meaning meths or rizo disproved my points. I made arguments, they made counter arguments.
Science doesn’t care for arguments. It cares for evidence, of which you provided none.
4jacks wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 9:52am :
there are many times when the fossils we find DON'T fit the evolutionary time scale. These finding are routinely discarded, but anyone of them puts a serious crimp in the evolution time line.
Copy me one credible example. Seriously, just one.
4jacks wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 9:52am :
Genetics is really your weakest point to argue. No one can offer any decent explanation on how mutations can INCREASE information. All mutation experiments that we can perform show a LOSS of information. The notion that "Hey, maybe, once in a million years these mutations will INCREASE information" is a Green Mouse (I really like rizo's analogy)
I won't pretend to be an expert on the whole Junk DNA debate currently/recently going on with Mr. Behe and Mr. Miller. I say we let them hash it out, no sense in you and I pretending we know more than them, just because we read their articles.
One is a recognised scientist. The other is a fraudseter who couldn’t even name a single example of irreducible complexity (a ‘theory’ of his own devising) under oath.
4jacks wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 9:52am :
Personally, I view the topic similar to my second post. Just because you find similarities in different species (DNA or otherwise) doesn't necessarily mean we evolved. Evolution proposes Common Ancestor. Creation proposes Common Designer. Similarities and Differences in species, don't point to one or the other.
Those two things were created by a common designer. Yet they have nothing in common. What are the features of common design? How would we know that something was designed by a common designer? And what would prove that something wasn’t created by a common designer?
4jacks wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 9:52am :
And the sheer insanity of the Deluge also creates many many geological features which can not have formed over "billions of years"
IE the grand canyon and trees found standing up straight through millions of years of soil/rock layers.
Now what do you suppose it would look like if all that dirt fell into the ocean instead of on the ground?
The White Cliffs are a chalk deposit. The Landslide wasn’t. Chalk deposits can only form, very, very, very slowly, from a gradual build up of calcium carbonate deposits, from marine creatures, in still water over a long period of time. There is literally no way that CHALK deposits this high could have been built during flood conditions, or even in the relatively short period of time afterwards.
4jacks wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 9:52am :
The Global flood, doesn't have to explain EVERY geological form we have. There has been plenty of time for other geological events since the flood.
Yeah, but it will have to explain the formations that take > than 10,000 years to form. Which it can’t.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45']
Geography is another sore subject for evolution and old earth. All we see around us is EROSION. The high spots are moving to the low spots. You might be able to site little events (earthquakes, etc) that form little tiny mole hills. But the amount of natural Erosion that we witnes
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45']
Darwin only really noted Micro-Evolution. Which doesn't really contradict creation, and no one is really arguing that.
[/QUOTE]
One is the other.
Besides. Where do you define the ‘kind’ barrier? Is it at species? Is it at genus? Where? Because we have observed both these types of changes. Both from one species to another and another genus to anther genus. Really, what amount of observed evidence are you willing to accept?
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45']
Nothing was "shown" to me, as you are implying, meaning meths or rizo disproved my points. I made arguments, they made counter arguments. [/QUOTE]
Science doesn’t care for arguments. It cares for evidence, of which you provided none.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45']
there are many times when the fossils we find DON'T fit the evolutionary time scale. These finding are routinely discarded, but anyone of them puts a serious crimp in the evolution time line.
[/QUOTE]
Copy me one credible example. Seriously, just one.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45']
Genetics is really your weakest point to argue. No one can offer any decent explanation on how mutations can INCREASE information. All mutation experiments that we can perform show a LOSS of information. The notion that "Hey, maybe, once in a million years these mutations will INCREASE information" is a Green Mouse (I really like rizo's analogy)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Next.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45']
I won't pretend to be an expert on the whole Junk DNA debate currently/recently going on with Mr. Behe and Mr. Miller. I say we let them hash it out, no sense in you and I pretending we know more than them, just because we read their articles.
[/QUOTE]
One is a recognised scientist. The other is a fraudseter who couldn’t even name a single example of irreducible complexity (a ‘theory’ of his own devising) under oath.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45']
Personally, I view the topic similar to my second post. Just because you find similarities in different species (DNA or otherwise) doesn't necessarily mean we evolved. Evolution proposes Common Ancestor. Creation proposes Common Designer. Similarities and Differences in species, don't point to one or the other.
Those two things were created by a common designer. Yet they have nothing in common. What are the features of common design? How would we know that something was designed by a common designer? And what would prove that something wasn’t created by a common designer?
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45']
And the sheer insanity of the Deluge also creates many many geological features which can not have formed over "billions of years"
IE the grand canyon and trees found standing up straight through millions of years of soil/rock layers. [/QUOTE]
Now what do you suppose it would look like if all that dirt fell into the ocean instead of on the ground? [/QUOTE]
The White Cliffs are a chalk deposit. The Landslide wasn’t. Chalk deposits can only form, very, very, very slowly, from a gradual build up of calcium carbonate deposits, from marine creatures, in still water over a long period of time. There is literally no way that CHALK deposits this high could have been built during flood conditions, or even in the relatively short period of time afterwards.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45']
The Global flood, doesn't have to explain EVERY geological form we have. There has been plenty of time for other geological events since the flood.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but it will have to explain the formations that take > than 10,000 years to form. Which it can’t.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45']
Geography is another sore subject for evolution and old earth. All we see around us is EROSION. The high spots are moving to the low spots. You might be able to site little events (earthquakes, etc) that form little tiny mole hills. But the amount of natural Erosion that we witnes
darthteet wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 8:32pm : One is the other.
That is so very wrong. We have been breeding dogs like crazy for hundreds of years, we have little ones, we have big ones, skinny ones, fat one. We do not have any dogs that don’t bark and sniff other dogs butts. We never will.
darthteet wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 8:32pm :
Besides. Where do you define the ‘kind’ barrier? Is it at species? Is it at genus? Where? Because we have observed both these types of changes. Both from one species to another and another genus to anther genus. Really, what amount of observed evidence are you willing to accept?
Well that’s really another problem isn’t it. Scientist can’t even figure that out. I’m willing to argue we’ve never seen one species turn into another. The biggest evidence I’ve seen is when they had a bunch of mice that the colony turned black when they killed all the white ones. They tried to do the same thing for Moths, but that was proven to be a fraud.
darthteet wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 8:32pm : Science doesn’t care for arguments. It cares for evidence, of which you provided none.
We are not scienctist. We are two people who happen to play guitar arguing on the internet. I’m a civil engineer and I still suck at guitar. And anyone who may read this is probably in the same boat. So arguments do apply here.
darthteet wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 8:32pm : Copy me one credible example. Seriously, just one
Well, I thought you would never ask! Coelacanth the 325 million year old fish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth what the wiki article doesn’t seem to clearly mention is that the Coelacanth was a Key Fossil. Oddly enough, it still is. What that means is that when they find a fossil of the Coelacanth, they date that layer of rock/stone/soil to be 325 million years old. So anything else they find in that layer they assume is also 325 million years old. Well that’s a problem, because the darn fish is still alive and swimming around! So all those fossils could be 10 years old!
darthteet wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 8:32pm : One is a recognised scientist. The other is a fraudseter who couldn’t even name a single example of irreducible complexity (a ‘theory’ of his own devising) under oath
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I have mine. But please don’t blatantly lie about the court case. It’s common knowledge Behe spent time going over the flagellum. Afterwards Dawkins? Made a counter argument, and Behe wasn’t given the chance to respond. I’m not even a big fan of Behe, so lets move on.
4jacks wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 9:52am : Those two things were created by a common designer. Yet they have nothing in common. What are the features of common design? How would we know that something was designed by a common designer? And what would prove that something wasn’t created by a common designer?
So you are suggesting that the watch and the couch have a Common Ancestor?
darthteet wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 8:32pm : The White Cliffs are a chalk deposit. The Landslide wasn’t. Chalk deposits can only form, very, very, very slowly,
And what evidence do you have for that? We use to say the same thing about Oil, takes millions of years to form, we said that about the ice rings of the artic. Chalk is Limestone! We look all over the earth and all under the earth and we have millions of spots where different types of stone/rock stick together, we have granite mines, etc.
darthteet wrote on Aug 19th, 2008 at 8:32pm :
Yeah, but it will have to explain the formations that take > than 10,000 years to form. Which it can’t.
All our assumptions that these formations take over 10k years to form have old earth theology built into them. I’ve heard this argument from lava to limestone. We can only see what we can see. We have X amount of limestone, geologist ASSUME Y number of years, and go X/Y that must be the rate of formation. There is no observable formation, so we can’t test it. I can just as easily cut Y by 1/1000 or Double Y, it really makes no difference.
You got cut off on your last point. I hate that.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-19 20:32:57'] One is the other.[/quote]
That is so very wrong. We have been breeding dogs like crazy for hundreds of years, we have little ones, we have big ones, skinny ones, fat one. We do not have any dogs that don’t bark and sniff other dogs butts. We never will.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-19 20:32:57']
Besides. Where do you define the ‘kind’ barrier? Is it at species? Is it at genus? Where? Because we have observed both these types of changes. Both from one species to another and another genus to anther genus. Really, what amount of observed evidence are you willing to accept?[/quote]
Well that’s really another problem isn’t it. Scientist can’t even figure that out. I’m willing to argue we’ve never seen one species turn into another. The biggest evidence I’ve seen is when they had a bunch of mice that the colony turned black when they killed all the white ones. They tried to do the same thing for Moths, but that was proven to be a fraud.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-19 20:32:57'] Science doesn’t care for arguments. It cares for evidence, of which you provided none.[/quote]
We are not scienctist. We are two people who happen to play guitar arguing on the internet. I’m a civil engineer and I still suck at guitar. And anyone who may read this is probably in the same boat. So arguments do apply here.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-19 20:32:57'] Copy me one credible example. Seriously, just one[/quote]Well, I thought you would never ask! Coelacanth the 325 million year old fish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth what the wiki article doesn’t seem to clearly mention is that the Coelacanth was a Key Fossil. Oddly enough, it still is. What that means is that when they find a fossil of the Coelacanth, they date that layer of rock/stone/soil to be 325 million years old. So anything else they find in that layer they assume is also 325 million years old. Well that’s a problem, because the darn fish is still alive and swimming around! So all those fossils could be 10 years old!
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-19 20:32:57'] One is a recognised scientist. The other is a fraudseter who couldn’t even name a single example of irreducible complexity (a ‘theory’ of his own devising) under oath[/quote]
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I have mine. But please don’t blatantly lie about the court case. It’s common knowledge Behe spent time going over the flagellum. Afterwards Dawkins? Made a counter argument, and Behe wasn’t given the chance to respond. I’m not even a big fan of Behe, so lets move on.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-19 09:52:45'] Those two things were created by a common designer. Yet they have nothing in common. What are the features of common design? How would we know that something was designed by a common designer? And what would prove that something wasn’t created by a common designer?[/quote]
So you are suggesting that the watch and the couch have a Common Ancestor?
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-19 20:32:57'] The White Cliffs are a chalk deposit. The Landslide wasn’t. Chalk deposits can only form, very, very, very slowly, [/quote]
And what evidence do you have for that? We use to say the same thing about Oil, takes millions of years to form, we said that about the ice rings of the artic. Chalk is Limestone! We look all over the earth and all under the earth and we have millions of spots where different types of stone/rock stick together, we have granite mines, etc.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-19 20:32:57']
Yeah, but it will have to explain the formations that take > than 10,000 years to form. Which it can’t.[/quote]
All our assumptions that these formations take over 10k years to form have old earth theology built into them. I’ve heard this argument from lava to limestone. We can only see what we can see. We have X amount of limestone, geologist ASSUME Y number of years, and go X/Y that must be the rate of formation. There is no observable formation, so we can’t test it. I can just as easily cut Y by 1/1000 or Double Y, it really makes no difference.
This is a horrible format for a debate. It doesn't allow for very long posts and you can't pit links in words.
So I vote we chose a small topic to focus on at a time then.
The main points we seem to be discussing are the age minimum age of the earth, as indicated by chalk deposits, and the 'living fossil' that is coelacanth.
One the subject of the fish (there's no way I'm going to be able to spell it again!):
It is a separate species from the ones found found from 325 million years ago. This is exactly what one would expect from evolution. Without a drastic change in environment, leading to strong selective pressure, a successful species would remain relatively unchanged.
As for chalk deposits, ala the Cliffs of Dover. The chalk deposits are created by Coccolithophores. These creatures are observed today, so unless sometime in the last ~6,000, or whatever timescale you are proposing, these creatures were born and died at a rate completely unheard of in the natural world, there is no way that the cliffs could have reached that height in that timeframe.
Besides, that's not the only dating method we have to put a minimum age on the earth.
A few side points. Yes I am a scientist. I am studying for an MChem and Uni, and apply the scientific method every day in the lab. I would say that qualifies me as at least some level of scientist.
No I am not suggesting that the watch and the couch have a common ancestor, as they cannot reproduce and do not fit into a nested heirarchy, which can be clarified through fossil morphology and genetics. Hint, life isn't a couch. It can reproduce, and guess what fossil morphology and genetics fit into...
Also, who is arguing theology? I'm certainly not. I'm talking about geology and biology, not theology. If you can't separate your own personal, narrow, interpretation of scripture from what God's own creation is telling you then this won't be a fruitful discussion.
This is a horrible format for a debate. It doesn't allow for very long posts and you can't pit links in words.
So I vote we chose a small topic to focus on at a time then.
The main points we seem to be discussing are the age minimum age of the earth, as indicated by chalk deposits, and the 'living fossil' that is coelacanth.
One the subject of the fish (there's no way I'm going to be able to spell it again!):
It is a separate species from the ones found found from 325 million years ago. This is exactly what one would expect from evolution. Without a drastic change in environment, leading to strong selective pressure, a successful species would remain relatively unchanged.
As for chalk deposits, ala the Cliffs of Dover. The chalk deposits are created by Coccolithophores. These creatures are observed today, so unless sometime in the last ~6,000, or whatever timescale you are proposing, these creatures were born and died at a rate completely unheard of in the natural world, there is no way that the cliffs could have reached that height in that timeframe.
Besides, that's not the only dating method we have to put a minimum age on the earth.
A few side points. Yes I am a scientist. I am studying for an MChem and Uni, and apply the scientific method every day in the lab. I would say that qualifies me as at least some level of scientist.
No I am not suggesting that the watch and the couch have a common ancestor, as they cannot reproduce and do not fit into a nested heirarchy, which can be clarified through fossil morphology and genetics. Hint, life isn't a couch. It can reproduce, and guess what fossil morphology and genetics fit into...
Also, who is arguing theology? I'm certainly not. I'm talking about geology and biology, not theology. If you can't separate your own personal, narrow, interpretation of scripture from what God's own creation is telling you then this won't be a fruitful discussion.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 8:25am : This is a horrible format for a debate. It doesn't allow for very long posts and you can't pit links in words.
So I vote we chose a small topic to focus on at a time then.
I agree 100% and I wish I was more familiar with the forum features before I started this, I find myself typing in a word document and then pasting back into the web browser, it helps a little.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 8:25am : http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html
It is a separate species from the ones found found from 325 million years ago. This is exactly what one would expect from evolution.
I will disagree. That it is the same exact gosh darn fish. I could offer link to YEC websites and forums to support that. But personally I really hate to link to YEC websites and forums. I much rather the readers of this thread to research the topics for themselves. The truth is you won’t believe my links to be reliable and I really don’t believe your links are reliable.
My big point is that the arguments for YEC are plentiful, logical, and readily available. Everyone can make their own decision on whether Evolutionist sites are more reliable then YEC sites. I’m not going to site here and bash Wikipedia and Talkorgins. And I’m not going to promote Behe, AIG, anyone else.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 8:25am :
As for chalk deposits, ala the Cliffs of Dover. The chalk deposits are created by Coccolithophores. These creatures are observed today, so unless sometime in the last ~6,000, or whatever timescale you are proposing, these creatures were born and died at a rate completely unheard of in the natural world, there is no way that the cliffs could have reached that height in that timeframe.
Let me look into the limestone a little more and get back to you, I honestly haven’t studied it before. Off the top of my head I am questioning whether dead animals are necessary for creating the limestone. (meaning limestone is found naturally) and Of course a ‘burial ground’ of sorts isn’t really out of the question. That is in fact what we find with oil deposits. So I do admit, I’m not knowledgeable about limestone, but I don’t see is as really threatening.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 8:25am : Besides, that's not the only dating method we have to put a minimum age on the earth.
I like dating methods and I’m open to talk about any you want to mention.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 8:25am : A few side points. Yes I am a scientist. I am studying for an MChem and Uni, and apply the scientific method every day in the lab. I would say that qualifies me as at least some level of scientist.
That’s cool. You are free to argue debate anyway that is comfortable to you. Personally I focus on logic and trying to convince audience members to line of thinking, not opponents. In Rizo’s green mouse example. If you tell me I have a green mouse in my house. I will disagree with you and put no effort into disproving it. If you claim that I can’t be certain, because the scientific method proves it’s not impossible, I will make fun of you and still put no effort into disproving it.
To me, the way it seems, (I say seems because I’m not an expert) when you say “scientific method” it leaves no room for anything unexplained. There is no room to say. Well we know A and B, but we just don’t know C yet. In essence it leaves no room for God. And the vast majority of people do in fact believe in at least some form of God. And I debate to convince the vast majority, not the minority. So I will approach any topic with a more logical perspective.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 8:25am : No I am not suggesting that the watch and the couch have a common ancestor, as they cannot reproduce and do not fit into a nested heirarchy, which can be clarified through fossil morphology and genetics. Hint, life isn't a couch. It can reproduce, and guess what fossil morphology and genetics fit into...
I’m sorry, I just don’t see where your going. Once again I think it falls back to the common ancestor versus common designer.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 8:25am : Also, who is arguing theology? I'm certainly not. I'm talking about geology and biology, not theology. If you can't separate your own personal, narrow, interpretation of scripture from what God's own creation is telling you then this won't be a fruitful discussion.
I believe the term “Old Earth Theology” and “Young Earth Theology” to be grammatically correct in the English language. Perhaps you interpret the definition of the word “theology” differently. But from my point of view, Old Earth Theology refers to the study of origins from atheist religion. Where Young Earth Theology is the study of origins from a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and a few other religions. I don’t mean this as an
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 08:25:33'] This is a horrible format for a debate. It doesn't allow for very long posts and you can't pit links in words.
So I vote we chose a small topic to focus on at a time then.[/quote]
I agree 100% and I wish I was more familiar with the forum features before I started this, I find myself typing in a word document and then pasting back into the web browser, it helps a little.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 08:25:33']
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html
It is a separate species from the ones found found from 325 million years ago. This is exactly what one would expect from evolution. [/quote]
I will disagree. That it is the same exact gosh darn fish. I could offer link to YEC websites and forums to support that. But personally I really hate to link to YEC websites and forums. I much rather the readers of this thread to research the topics for themselves. The truth is you won’t believe my links to be reliable and I really don’t believe your links are reliable.
My big point is that the arguments for YEC are plentiful, logical, and readily available. Everyone can make their own decision on whether Evolutionist sites are more reliable then YEC sites. I’m not going to site here and bash Wikipedia and Talkorgins. And I’m not going to promote Behe, AIG, anyone else.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 08:25:33']
As for chalk deposits, ala the Cliffs of Dover. The chalk deposits are created by Coccolithophores. These creatures are observed today, so unless sometime in the last ~6,000, or whatever timescale you are proposing, these creatures were born and died at a rate completely unheard of in the natural world, there is no way that the cliffs could have reached that height in that timeframe. [/quote]
Let me look into the limestone a little more and get back to you, I honestly haven’t studied it before. Off the top of my head I am questioning whether dead animals are necessary for creating the limestone. (meaning limestone is found naturally) and Of course a ‘burial ground’ of sorts isn’t really out of the question. That is in fact what we find with oil deposits. So I do admit, I’m not knowledgeable about limestone, but I don’t see is as really threatening.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 08:25:33']Besides, that's not the only dating method we have to put a minimum age on the earth.[/quote]
I like dating methods and I’m open to talk about any you want to mention.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 08:25:33']A few side points. Yes I am a scientist. I am studying for an MChem and Uni, and apply the scientific method every day in the lab. I would say that qualifies me as at least some level of scientist.[/quote]
That’s cool. You are free to argue debate anyway that is comfortable to you. Personally I focus on logic and trying to convince audience members to line of thinking, not opponents. In Rizo’s green mouse example. If you tell me I have a green mouse in my house. I will disagree with you and put no effort into disproving it. If you claim that I can’t be certain, because the scientific method proves it’s not impossible, I will make fun of you and still put no effort into disproving it.
To me, the way it seems, (I say seems because I’m not an expert) when you say “scientific method” it leaves no room for anything unexplained. There is no room to say. Well we know A and B, but we just don’t know C yet. In essence it leaves no room for God. And the vast majority of people do in fact believe in at least some form of God. And I debate to convince the vast majority, not the minority. So I will approach any topic with a more logical perspective.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 08:25:33']No I am not suggesting that the watch and the couch have a common ancestor, as they cannot reproduce and do not fit into a nested heirarchy, which can be clarified through fossil morphology and genetics. Hint, life isn't a couch. It can reproduce, and guess what fossil morphology and genetics fit into...[/quote]
I’m sorry, I just don’t see where your going. Once again I think it falls back to the common ancestor versus common designer.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 08:25:33']Also, who is arguing theology? I'm certainly not. I'm talking about geology and biology, not theology. If you can't separate your own personal, narrow, interpretation of scripture from what God's own creation is telling you then this won't be a fruitful discussion.[/QUOTE]
I believe the term “Old Earth Theology” and “Young Earth Theology” to be grammatically correct in the English language. Perhaps you interpret the definition of the word “theology” differently. But from my point of view, Old Earth Theology refers to the study of origins from atheist religion. Where Young Earth Theology is the study of origins from a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and a few other religions. I don’t mean this as an
. I don’t mean this as an insult, I understand that some atheist prefer to be term as without a religion, and are insulted by terms like theology. But I believe it is correct English to both call atheism a religion and also correct to call the study of origins theology.
I don’t believe my interpretation of scripture is narrow, and I do agree this will certainly not be a fruitful conversation in terms that you convince me to believe Old Earth theology or I get you to believe in YEC. The most we can hope for is that we clearly state our cases, and that any readers will benefit.
Also, your last sentence puzzled me. Are you a theist? You said “God’s own creation” as if you also believe in God.
These post are getting too long and confusing I apologize. If you would like to pick any single point to continue, please do so. I won't accuse you of dodging or anything. I'll respond to whatever you want to discuss.
. I don’t mean this as an insult, I understand that some atheist prefer to be term as without a religion, and are insulted by terms like theology. But I believe it is correct English to both call atheism a religion and also correct to call the study of origins theology.
I don’t believe my interpretation of scripture is narrow, and I do agree this will certainly not be a fruitful conversation in terms that you convince me to believe Old Earth theology or I get you to believe in YEC. The most we can hope for is that we clearly state our cases, and that any readers will benefit.
Also, your last sentence puzzled me. Are you a theist? You said “God’s own creation” as if you also believe in God.
These post are getting too long and confusing I apologize. If you would like to pick any single point to continue, please do so. I won't accuse you of dodging or anything. I'll respond to whatever you want to discuss.
I won't quote what I'm replying to, so that my post doesn't run onto to posts, but will reference what I am replying to...
You can disagree about the fish being a separate species all you want, but the fact remains that it is. One is morphologically distinct enough from the other to be considered a new species.
Chalk deposits are created from the marine creatures. That's simply what they are. It should worry you as it puts a minimum time for the cliffs to reach the height that they are. To fit these geological features into such a short time frame as you proposing would be impossible.
I agree with you that debates tend not to be to convince the debaters but are usually to convince the 'audience'. However as a scientist, I would be willing to change my opinion on this issue if adequate evidence was provided. I would have no choice.
On the subject of the watch and the couch: I said that since life fits into a nested hierarchy, this is evidence of a common ancestor. You said that it was evidence of a common designer. I pointed out that the watch and couch have a common designer, however have no features in common, such as life does. This means that life doesn't necessarily have a common designer because of the common 'design', since there are plenty of things created by a common designer, which don't have the same similarities as life does. If that rather clumsy sentence made sense....
On the scientific method: The scientific method relies on evidence, falsifiability and peer review. It doesn't exclude anything, except things which are not falsifiable or empirical. God seems to have chosen to make himself unfalsifiable and un-empirical. Don't blame me, that was His choice. However his creation is most certainly empirical and ideas about it's 'life' are falsifiable. I don't really know what you are saying beyond that.
Theology is not an applicable term as theology is the " the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity."
We are not studying Gods attributes or his relation to the universe. We are not trying to discern religious truth, or divinity. We are studying nature. His natural creation. Hence the term theology is not applicable, whereas the terms geology and biology are applicable, in this case.
Personally I do believe that your interpretation of scripture is narrow. The existence of your understanding of God hinges on the fact the world is ~<10,000 years old. Whereas I am more than willing to accept that God would be above that. He would be above mere words. His genius would transcend narrow readings of Hebrew nomads. You seem to be putting limits on God by saying that he couldn't have done something, while disregarding his entire creation. Since God would be so above our comprehension reading his word as only literal would be a detrimental decision as, like the ant can't understand man, how would we hope to understand Gods true meaning and intention if all we have to go on is our mortal, temporal language. How would we understand God's language if that ant can't understand ours?
Does that make sense? That's not a rhetorical question, or me being cheeky, it's a genuine question. I found it quite hard to put into words what I was thinking, so perhaps it came of as rant-y and completely missed the point.
Why did you assume I was an atheist? I am, inidentally, I was just trying to look at it from a Christian perspective. Also I believe that if God was to exist, he would have created the world via natural process (evolution et al) as that is what his creation is telling us.
I won't quote what I'm replying to, so that my post doesn't run onto to posts, but will reference what I am replying to...
You can disagree about the fish being a separate species all you want, but the fact remains that it is. One is morphologically distinct enough from the other to be considered a new species.
Chalk deposits are created from the marine creatures. That's simply what they are. It should worry you as it puts a minimum time for the cliffs to reach the height that they are. To fit these geological features into such a short time frame as you proposing would be impossible.
I agree with you that debates tend not to be to convince the debaters but are usually to convince the 'audience'. However as a scientist, I would be willing to change my opinion on this issue if adequate evidence was provided. I would have no choice.
On the subject of the watch and the couch: I said that since life fits into a nested hierarchy, this is evidence of a common ancestor. You said that it was evidence of a common designer. I pointed out that the watch and couch have a common designer, however have no features in common, such as life does. This means that life doesn't necessarily have a common designer because of the common 'design', since there are plenty of things created by a common designer, which don't have the same similarities as life does. If that rather clumsy sentence made sense....
On the scientific method: The scientific method relies on evidence, falsifiability and peer review. It doesn't exclude anything, except things which are not falsifiable or empirical. God seems to have chosen to make himself unfalsifiable and un-empirical. Don't blame me, that was His choice. However his creation is most certainly empirical and ideas about it's 'life' are falsifiable. I don't really know what you are saying beyond that.
Theology is not an applicable term as theology is the " the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity."
We are not studying Gods attributes or his relation to the universe. We are not trying to discern religious truth, or divinity. We are studying nature. His natural creation. Hence the term theology is not applicable, whereas the terms geology and biology are applicable, in this case.
Personally I do believe that your interpretation of scripture is narrow. The existence of your understanding of God hinges on the fact the world is ~<10,000 years old. Whereas I am more than willing to accept that God would be above that. He would be above mere words. His genius would transcend narrow readings of Hebrew nomads. You seem to be putting limits on God by saying that he couldn't have done something, while disregarding his entire creation. Since God would be so above our comprehension reading his word as only literal would be a detrimental decision as, like the ant can't understand man, how would we hope to understand Gods true meaning and intention if all we have to go on is our mortal, temporal language. How would we understand God's language if that ant can't understand ours?
Does that make sense? That's not a rhetorical question, or me being cheeky, it's a genuine question. I found it quite hard to put into words what I was thinking, so perhaps it came of as rant-y and completely missed the point.
Why did you assume I was an atheist? I am, inidentally, I was just trying to look at it from a Christian perspective. Also I believe that if God was to exist, he would have created the world via natural process (evolution et al) as that is what his creation is telling us.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 7:20pm : You can disagree about the fish being a separate species all you want, but the fact remains that it is.
You can disagree about the fish not being a separate species all you want, but the fact remains that it is not.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 7:20pm : That's simply what they are. It should worry you as it puts a minimum time for the cliffs to reach the height that they are. To fit these geological features into such a short time frame as you proposing would be impossible.
I’m sorry I’m not prepared to talk about the chalk limestone, I’ve been on youtube debating politics too much. But I highlighted what you said. And that is a classic evolutionist argument/assumption. You said that the time HAS to unknown the variable. But that is not the mathematical formula. We are looking at QUANTITY of limestone. The formula is Rate times Time = Quantity. We do not know the Rate or the Time. You are assuming that the rate is LOW in order to make your TIME work.
Here is where I could pull out a Green mouse and say, Maybe an ancient people had some whacky religion and collected all those sea shells? Maybe it was a big religious pile of sea shells.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 7:20pm : I said that since life fits into a nested hierarchy, this is evidence of a common ancestor.
Why is God eliminated from creating a Hierarchy?
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 7:20pm : Theology is not an applicable term as theology is the " the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity."
The bolded section proves my reasoning. The study of Origins is very much the study of God Relations to the universe, or the Study of No-God relating to the universe, depending on whether you are atheist or theist. If you don’t agree, you don’t have to use my terminology, but at least we know are clear about what we are saying and referring to.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 19:20:16'] Personally I do believe that your interpretation of scripture is narrow. The existence of your understanding of God hinges on the fact the world is ~<10,000 years old.
That is very incorrect, and gets into my personal religious beliefs, which is very off topic. My understanding of God hinges on NOTHING. I have a personal relationship with him. To get further into depth on this, I would get greatly off topic. So I do ask that you don’t interject your views into my religious beliefs. Or if you care to, we can start a new thread.
darthteet wrote on Aug 21st, 2008 at 7:20pm : Why did you assume I was an atheist? I am, inidentally
I at first assumed you were an atheist, because you fit all the statistics. It’s not personal, just mathematical. Now that I know you are an atheist and evolutionist. I would bet money that you are liberal, that you support Obama, that you a womans right to choose, that you are at least to a minor degree a socialist, that you believe in gun control, welfare and the separate of church and state and you don’t support the war. And you could make just as many if not more assumptions about me.
The battle between Evolution and Creation is just a very tiny little piece of a much larger war.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 19:20:16'] You can disagree about the fish being a separate species all you want, but the fact remains that it is.[/quote]
You can disagree about the fish not being a separate species all you want, but the fact remains that it is not.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 19:20:16'] That's simply what they are. It should worry you [b]as it puts a minimum time[/b] for the cliffs to reach the height that they are. To fit these geological features into such a short time frame as you proposing would be impossible.[/quote]
I’m sorry I’m not prepared to talk about the chalk limestone, I’ve been on youtube debating politics too much. But I highlighted what you said. And that is a classic evolutionist argument/assumption. You said that the time HAS to unknown the variable. But that is not the mathematical formula. We are looking at QUANTITY of limestone. The formula is Rate times Time = Quantity. We do not know the Rate or the Time. You are assuming that the rate is LOW in order to make your TIME work.
Here is where I could pull out a Green mouse and say, Maybe an ancient people had some whacky religion and collected all those sea shells? Maybe it was a big religious pile of sea shells.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 19:20:16'] I said that since life fits into a nested hierarchy, this is evidence of a common ancestor. [/quote]
Why is God eliminated from creating a Hierarchy?
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 19:20:16'] Theology is not an applicable term as theology is the " the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of [b]God's attributes and relations to the universe[/b]; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity."
The bolded section proves my reasoning. The study of Origins is very much the study of God Relations to the universe, or the Study of No-God relating to the universe, depending on whether you are atheist or theist. If you don’t agree, you don’t have to use my terminology, but at least we know are clear about what we are saying and referring to.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 19:20:16'] Personally I do believe that your interpretation of scripture is narrow. The existence of your understanding of God hinges on the fact the world is ~<10,000 years old.[/quote]
That is very incorrect, and gets into my personal religious beliefs, which is very off topic. My understanding of God hinges on NOTHING. I have a personal relationship with him. To get further into depth on this, I would get greatly off topic. So I do ask that you don’t interject your views into my religious beliefs. Or if you care to, we can start a new thread.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-21 19:20:16'] Why did you assume I was an atheist? I am, inidentally[/QUOTE]
I at first assumed you were an atheist, because you fit all the statistics. It’s not personal, just mathematical. Now that I know you are an atheist and evolutionist. I would bet money that you are liberal, that you support Obama, that you a womans right to choose, that you are at least to a minor degree a socialist, that you believe in gun control, welfare and the separate of church and state and you don’t support the war. And you could make just as many if not more assumptions about me.
The battle between Evolution and Creation is just a very tiny little piece of a much larger war.
Disproving one hypothesis doesn't automatically, in effect or otherwise, prove another. That's stupid.
If I had never seen the post man in the morning, but I knew it couldn't be postal elves, does that mean my post was delivered via postal fairies? No It simply means that it wasn't the postal elves. I'd need evidence of the postal fairies before hand.
And darthteet, 4jacks is now going to reply with something along the lines of " Of course there is debate, we're doing it now!"
What he doesn't realise, or wont accept, however is that the "controversy" is wholly implemented and stirred up by none scientists or people with a flawed understanding of science and ideas of spreading Christian dogma. Organisations such as the ironically named "discovery institute" help to push the argument into the news when it is actually a none issue.
Seriously, how can a big flood explain the extremely well ordered appearance of fossils which is predicted by evolution and is incredibly replicable. The same patterns are found all over the world. Surely if all of these died in a big flood they would all be mixed up together?
It can't but it is something that can be predicted using evolution and a basic knowledge of geology and is found to be replicable all over the world.
It's absolutely retarded that people still believe creationism, something that should have been laid to rest over 100 years ago.
It's genuinely daft. Thank god (haha) Britain isn't infested with this madness yet.
Disproving one hypothesis doesn't automatically, in effect or otherwise, prove another. That's stupid.
If I had never seen the post man in the morning, but I knew it couldn't be postal elves, does that mean my post was delivered via postal fairies? No It simply means that it wasn't the postal elves. I'd need evidence of the postal fairies before hand.
And darthteet, 4jacks is now going to reply with something along the lines of " Of course there is debate, we're doing it now!"
What he doesn't realise, or wont accept, however is that the "controversy" is wholly implemented and stirred up by none scientists or people with a flawed understanding of science and ideas of spreading Christian dogma. Organisations such as the ironically named "discovery institute" help to push the argument into the news when it is actually a none issue.
Seriously, how can a big flood explain the extremely well ordered appearance of fossils which is predicted by evolution and is incredibly replicable. The same patterns are found all over the world. Surely if all of these died in a big flood they would all be mixed up together?
It can't but it is something that can be predicted using evolution and a basic knowledge of geology and is found to be replicable all over the world.
It's absolutely retarded that people still believe creationism, something that should have been laid to rest over 100 years ago.
It's genuinely daft. Thank god (haha) Britain isn't infested with this madness yet.
darthteet wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 2:01pm : The fish is a separate species though
You are quoting talkorgins and wikipedia, I could quote YEC websites, it’s all a big circle. Let’s agree to disagree and let spectators review for themselves.
darthteet wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 2:01pm : God isn’t limited from creating a nested hierarchy, I was merely saying that this hierarchy is exactly what evolution predicted.
More than evolution predicting hierarchy, isn’t that why evolution was first thought up. Wasn’t Darwin’s tree of life part of the origins of evolution?
darthteet wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 2:01pm : You seem to have confused evolution with atheism/socialism/left-wing ideas.
No, I’m not confused at all. It’s just statistics. Atheism/Socialism/Left-wing ideas/and Evolution just statistically go hand in hand. People who defend evolution in general are all of the above. There are a few exceptions, but I’ve never met one.
darthteet wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 2:01pm : Evolution is none of those
It is the only theory which adequately explains the diversity of life, while remaining useful and falsifiable.
That’s the problem, you view Evolution as the ONLY theory, and you admit it’s falsifiable. But evolutionist time after time go to huge lengths and go through millions of green mice to refute the evidence that does Falsify Evolution. Because it is seen as the “only” option. If anything is to the contrary it is assumed to be wrong so all efforts are put into refuting it.
darthteet wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 2:01pm : Really, there isn’t even a debate in the scientific community about evolution.
Even the Christian scientists.
There are so many other articles on the unfairness coming from the University Atmosphere it’s insane. Of course that is what Ben Stein’s Movie Expelled was about. And once again we look at these universities and what do we see Liberalism, Socialism (union), atheism, and evolution.
It is a true statement to say that 98% of Universities teach evolution. I can agree with that. But to say that no intelligent, educated people believe evolution to be false is incorrect.
darthteet wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 2:01pm : Why do you personally beleive evolution to be an inedquate, or incorrect, explanation for the diversity of life?
I personally stopped believing in evolution after reading “Buried Alive” by Dr. Jack Cuozzo. It just really opened my eyes to something I never heard before. All I had ever known was evolution and millions of years. That sparked my interest in the subject and I started researching it more. When I discovered the internet debates online a couple years, I probably still had a slight chance of being unbiased back then, but all I found were YEC sites presenting pages upon pages of information and facts and links, but when I looked to the evolutionist sites, all I found was “Creationist are retarded” And that was their argument. But when I looked at the YEC sites, they certainly didn’t seem retarded.
That’s how it started, Where I am at now, there is more chance of me believing that the world is flat and is sitting on the back of a giant turtle, than believing in evolution ever again. There is just too much stuff I’ve read that hasn’t been properly refuted by evolutionist. There are too many instances of evolutionist being dishonest, getting caught in lies, faking evidence, the evolutionist community is too hostile for me to respect them (on a whole) (This group has been quite nice, especially encyclopedia, rizo and yourself.)
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-23 14:01:02']The fish is a separate species though[/quote]
You are quoting talkorgins and wikipedia, I could quote YEC websites, it’s all a big circle. Let’s agree to disagree and let spectators review for themselves.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-23 14:01:02']God isn’t limited from creating a nested hierarchy, I was merely saying that this hierarchy is exactly what evolution predicted.[/quote]
More than evolution predicting hierarchy, isn’t that why evolution was first thought up. Wasn’t Darwin’s tree of life part of the origins of evolution?
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-23 14:01:02']You seem to have confused evolution with atheism/socialism/left-wing ideas.[/quote]
No, I’m not confused at all. It’s just statistics. Atheism/Socialism/Left-wing ideas/and Evolution just statistically go hand in hand. People who defend evolution in general are all of the above. There are a few exceptions, but I’ve never met one.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-23 14:01:02']Evolution is none of those
It is the only theory which adequately explains the diversity of life, while remaining useful and falsifiable.[/quote]
That’s the problem, you view Evolution as the ONLY theory, and you admit it’s falsifiable. But evolutionist time after time go to huge lengths and go through millions of green mice to refute the evidence that does Falsify Evolution. Because it is seen as the “only” option. If anything is to the contrary it is assumed to be wrong so all efforts are put into refuting it.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-23 14:01:02'] Really, there isn’t even a debate in the scientific community about evolution.
Even the Christian scientists.[/quote]
Very untrue.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/
There are so many other articles on the unfairness coming from the University Atmosphere it’s insane. Of course that is what Ben Stein’s Movie Expelled was about. And once again we look at these universities and what do we see Liberalism, Socialism (union), atheism, and evolution.
It is a true statement to say that 98% of Universities teach evolution. I can agree with that. But to say that no intelligent, educated people believe evolution to be false is incorrect.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-23 14:01:02'] Why do you personally beleive evolution to be an inedquate, or incorrect, explanation for the diversity of life?[/QUOTE]
I personally stopped believing in evolution after reading “Buried Alive” by Dr. Jack Cuozzo. It just really opened my eyes to something I never heard before. All I had ever known was evolution and millions of years. That sparked my interest in the subject and I started researching it more. When I discovered the internet debates online a couple years, I probably still had a slight chance of being unbiased back then, but all I found were YEC sites presenting pages upon pages of information and facts and links, but when I looked to the evolutionist sites, all I found was “Creationist are retarded” And that was their argument. But when I looked at the YEC sites, they certainly didn’t seem retarded.
That’s how it started, Where I am at now, there is more chance of me believing that the world is flat and is sitting on the back of a giant turtle, than believing in evolution ever again. There is just too much stuff I’ve read that hasn’t been properly refuted by evolutionist. There are too many instances of evolutionist being dishonest, getting caught in lies, faking evidence, the evolutionist community is too hostile for me to respect them (on a whole) (This group has been quite nice, especially encyclopedia, rizo and yourself.)
rizo299 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 3:19pm : Disproving one hypothesis doesn't automatically, in effect or otherwise, prove another. That's stupid.
That is true in a situation where we have multiple possiblities.
rizo299 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 3:19pm : If I had never seen the post man in the morning, but I knew it couldn't be postal elves, does that mean my post was delivered via postal fairies? No It simply means that it wasn't the postal elves. I'd need evidence of the postal fairies before hand.
You’re example doesn’t fit. But it’s more ingenious than you realize. If you wake up and find Mail in the mail box. You only have two options to believe.
1) Some one or something put the mail in the mail box.
2) That mail some how magically appeared in your mail box.
I think you see where I am going with this.
rizo299 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 3:19pm :
And darthteet, 4jacks is now going to reply with something along the lines of " Of course there is debate, we're doing it now!"
That isn’t a fair statement for two reasons. First, there are plenty of list of Scientist who don’t support evolution. Second and most importantly you are undermining normal people from participating in a debate or even questioning evolution. The majority of people in the world do believe evolution. You are attempting to support the belief that the few people who do believe in evolution are smarter and the rest should just believe them, because they are smarter.
rizo299 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 3:19pm :
What he doesn't realise, or wont accept, however is that the "controversy" is wholly implemented and stirred up by none scientists or people with a flawed understanding of science and ideas of spreading Christian dogma. Organisations such as the ironically named "discovery institute" help to push the argument into the news when it is actually a none issue.
I’ll gladly admit that 98% of creationists are Christians. That doesn’t mean that we are systematically spreading Christian dogma. The evidence and the facts speak for themselves. People can listen to our arguments, listen to your arguments and decide which makes more sense. And that is WHY the “controversy” is actually becoming a bigger and bigger issue. With the advent of the internet, more and more people can seek out information.
rizo299 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 3:19pm : Seriously, how can a big flood explain the extremely well ordered appearance of fossils which is predicted by evolution and is incredibly replicable.
Great Question! I just spent 5 minutes looking and can’t find my source. It was a really cool article. Basically some scientist performed a test run in some kind of tank and found that flooding conditions do most certainly cause soil layers. I believe the was a set up that anyone could try on their own. I wish I could find it. As for the fossils it pretty much works the same as anything. If you mix a bunch of stuff up the heavy stuff sinks first, the really small stuff falls between it and the lightest stuff is up top. That’s why bird’s bones are always on top, they’re hollow. Don’t most of them float?
rizo299 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 3:19pm : The same patterns are found all over the world.
That just isn’t true! Soil/rock layers are VERY different all over the world. As I stated before contradiction fossil records are found all the time, and they are systematically being discarded because they don’t fit the perceived Fossil Record.
rizo299 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 3:19pm : It's absolutely retarded that people still believe creationism, something that should have been laid to rest over 100 years ago.
It's genuinely daft. Thank god (haha) Britain isn't infested with this madness yet.
You know what. If you were right, this WOULD have been laid to rest over 100 years ago. But you know what HAS happened over the past 100 years. We kept make discoveries proving life to be immensely more complicated than we originally thought. And what happens, evolutionist keeping having to say the earth is even older. At first it was 100,000 thousand years. Oops, that’s not long enough, make it 500,000 years… Still too short. It’s a MILLION YEARS OLD. And now we are at 4.5 Billion years. It’s getting ridiculous. The more we discover, the more time you guys need.
[QUOTE u='rizo299' d='2008-08-23 15:19:53']Disproving one hypothesis doesn't automatically, in effect or otherwise, prove another. That's stupid.[/quote]
That is true in a situation where we have multiple possiblities.
[QUOTE u='rizo299' d='2008-08-23 15:19:53'] If I had never seen the post man in the morning, but I knew it couldn't be postal elves, does that mean my post was delivered via postal fairies? No It simply means that it wasn't the postal elves. I'd need evidence of the postal fairies before hand.[/quote]
You’re example doesn’t fit. But it’s more ingenious than you realize. If you wake up and find Mail in the mail box. You only have two options to believe.
1) Some one or something put the mail in the mail box.
2) That mail some how magically appeared in your mail box.
I think you see where I am going with this.
[QUOTE u='rizo299' d='2008-08-23 15:19:53']
And darthteet, 4jacks is now going to reply with something along the lines of " Of course there is debate, we're doing it now!"
[/quote]
That isn’t a fair statement for two reasons. First, there are plenty of list of Scientist who don’t support evolution. Second and most importantly you are undermining normal people from participating in a debate or even questioning evolution. The majority of people in the world do believe evolution. You are attempting to support the belief that the few people who do believe in evolution are smarter and the rest should just believe them, because they are smarter.
[QUOTE u='rizo299' d='2008-08-23 15:19:53']
What he doesn't realise, or wont accept, however is that the "controversy" is wholly implemented and stirred up by none scientists or people with a flawed understanding of science and ideas of spreading Christian dogma. Organisations such as the ironically named "discovery institute" help to push the argument into the news when it is actually a none issue.[/quote]
I’ll gladly admit that 98% of creationists are Christians. That doesn’t mean that we are systematically spreading Christian dogma. The evidence and the facts speak for themselves. People can listen to our arguments, listen to your arguments and decide which makes more sense. And that is WHY the “controversy” is actually becoming a bigger and bigger issue. With the advent of the internet, more and more people can seek out information.
[QUOTE u='rizo299' d='2008-08-23 15:19:53']Seriously, how can a big flood explain the extremely well ordered appearance of fossils which is predicted by evolution and is incredibly replicable. [/quote]
Great Question! I just spent 5 minutes looking and can’t find my source. It was a really cool article. Basically some scientist performed a test run in some kind of tank and found that flooding conditions do most certainly cause soil layers. I believe the was a set up that anyone could try on their own. I wish I could find it. As for the fossils it pretty much works the same as anything. If you mix a bunch of stuff up the heavy stuff sinks first, the really small stuff falls between it and the lightest stuff is up top. That’s why bird’s bones are always on top, they’re hollow. Don’t most of them float?
[QUOTE u='rizo299' d='2008-08-23 15:19:53'] The same patterns are found all over the world. [/quote]
That just isn’t true! Soil/rock layers are VERY different all over the world. As I stated before contradiction fossil records are found all the time, and they are systematically being discarded because they don’t fit the perceived Fossil Record.
[QUOTE u='rizo299' d='2008-08-23 15:19:53'] It's absolutely retarded that people still believe creationism, something that should have been laid to rest over 100 years ago.
It's genuinely daft. Thank god (haha) Britain isn't infested with this madness yet. [/QUOTE]
You know what. If you were right, this WOULD have been laid to rest over 100 years ago. But you know what HAS happened over the past 100 years. We kept make discoveries proving life to be immensely more complicated than we originally thought. And what happens, evolutionist keeping having to say the earth is even older. At first it was 100,000 thousand years. Oops, that’s not long enough, make it 500,000 years… Still too short. It’s a MILLION YEARS OLD. And now we are at 4.5 Billion years. It’s getting ridiculous. The more we discover, the more time you guys need.
[quote=4jacks]I’ll gladly admit that 98% of creationists are Christians. That doesn’t mean that we are systematically spreading Christian dogma. The evidence and the facts speak for themselves. People can listen to our arguments, listen to your arguments and decide which makes more sense. And that is WHY the “controversy” is actually becoming a bigger and bigger issue. With the advent of the internet, more and more people can seek out information. [/quote]
That is just blatantly false. 100% of people that support the form of creationism you're advertising are Christians. Your entire theory is based solely upon Christianity. Instead of taking the scientific method (These are the facts, now what conclusions can you draw from it?) Creationists seem to take the opposite route (This is the conclusion, what facts can we draw from it?).
Your so called "Theory" (Which it by the scientific meaning of the word is nowhere near of being) is Christian dogma. How you can claim anything else I can't even begin to comprehend.
[quote=4jacks]I’ll gladly admit that 98% of creationists are Christians. That doesn’t mean that we are systematically spreading Christian dogma. The evidence and the facts speak for themselves. People can listen to our arguments, listen to your arguments and decide which makes more sense. And that is WHY the “controversy” is actually becoming a bigger and bigger issue. With the advent of the internet, more and more people can seek out information. [/quote]
That is just blatantly false. 100% of people that support the form of creationism you're advertising are Christians. Your entire theory is based solely upon Christianity. Instead of taking the scientific method (These are the facts, now what conclusions can you draw from it?) Creationists seem to take the opposite route (This is the conclusion, what facts can we draw from it?).
Your so called "Theory" (Which it by the scientific meaning of the word is nowhere near of being) is Christian dogma. How you can claim anything else I can't even begin to comprehend.
4jacks wrote on Aug 25th, 2008 at 2:47pm :
I personally stopped believing in evolution after reading “Buried Alive” by Dr. Jack Cuozzo. It just really opened my eyes to something I never heard before. All I had ever known was evolution and millions of years. That sparked my interest in the subject and I started researching it more. When I discovered the internet debates online a couple years, I probably still had a slight chance of being unbiased back then, but all I found were YEC sites presenting pages upon pages of information and facts and links, but when I looked to the evolutionist sites, all I found was “Creationist are retarded” And that was their argument. But when I looked at the YEC sites, they certainly didn’t seem retarded.
Was this unbiased information from evangelical websites? Talk origins certainly doesn’t resort to name calling. It presents facts and sources it’s evidence from peer reviewed journals. AiG doesn’t provide sources for it’s claims.
Science doesn’t care for arguments. This isn’t law. Truth isn’t decided by who can argue for their side the best, it is decided upon by what the evidence says, or in other words, what Gods pesonal creation is saying. What piece of evidence contradicts evolution?
4jacks wrote on Aug 25th, 2008 at 2:47pm :
That’s how it started, Where I am at now, there is more chance of me believing that the world is flat and is sitting on the back of a giant turtle, than believing in evolution ever again. There is just too much stuff I’ve read that hasn’t been properly refuted by evolutionist. There are too many instances of evolutionist being dishonest, getting caught in lies, faking evidence, the evolutionist community is too hostile for me to respect them (on a whole) (This group has been quite nice, especially encyclopedia, rizo and yourself.)
What do you feel hasn’t been properly refuted? We might be able to clear that up. Though, even if evolution was wrong, why does that mean that literal YEC is right? That’s a false dichotomy. Also, regardless of the hostility of the proponents, the evidence speaks for itself.
Also, massive LOL moment at the bolded bit. Kent Hovind is in jail for tax fraud. Behe admited under oath that Irreducible Complexity couldn't stand up to scientific enquiry. He also admited it wasn't science. Really it's quite hard to take creationists seriously when so many of their claims have been proven false, yet they continue to claim them. That's not tantamount to lying. That is lying.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-25 14:47:23']
I personally stopped believing in evolution after reading “Buried Alive” by Dr. Jack Cuozzo. It just really opened my eyes to something I never heard before. All I had ever known was evolution and millions of years. That sparked my interest in the subject and I started researching it more. When I discovered the internet debates online a couple years, I probably still had a slight chance of being unbiased back then, but all I found were YEC sites presenting pages upon pages of information and facts and links, but when I looked to the evolutionist sites, all I found was “Creationist are retarded” And that was their argument. But when I looked at the YEC sites, they certainly didn’t seem retarded. [/QUOTE]
Was this unbiased information from evangelical websites? Talk origins certainly doesn’t resort to name calling. It presents facts and sources it’s evidence from peer reviewed journals. AiG doesn’t provide sources for it’s claims.
Science doesn’t care for arguments. This isn’t law. Truth isn’t decided by who can argue for their side the best, it is decided upon by what the evidence says, or in other words, what Gods pesonal creation is saying. What piece of evidence contradicts evolution?
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-25 14:47:23']
That’s how it started, Where I am at now, there is more chance of me believing that the world is flat and is sitting on the back of a giant turtle, than believing in evolution ever again. There is just too much stuff I’ve read that hasn’t been properly refuted by evolutionist. There are too many instances of evolutionist being dishonest, getting caught in lies, faking evidence, the evolutionist community is too hostile for me to respect them (on a whole) (This group has been quite nice, especially encyclopedia, rizo and yourself.)[/QUOTE]
What do you feel hasn’t been properly refuted? We might be able to clear that up. Though, even if evolution was wrong, why does that mean that literal YEC is right? That’s a false dichotomy. Also, regardless of the hostility of the proponents, the evidence speaks for itself.
Also, massive LOL moment at the bolded bit. Kent Hovind is in jail for tax fraud. Behe admited under oath that Irreducible Complexity couldn't stand up to scientific enquiry. He also admited it wasn't science. Really it's quite hard to take creationists seriously when so many of their claims have been proven false, yet they continue to claim them. That's not tantamount to lying. That is lying.
JilaX^ wrote on Aug 25th, 2008 at 6:00pm : That is just blatantly false. 100% of people that support the form of creationism you're advertising are Christians.
Actually there are a lot of Jews and Muslims, as well. But even if you WANT to say 100%. That’s fine, we can say 100%. I don’t care. It doesn’t effect the arguments.
Dawkins said it best when he said that believing in evolution Leads to atheism. Believing the world was creation definitely Leads to theism.
JilaX^ wrote on Aug 25th, 2008 at 6:00pm : Your entire theory is based solely upon Christianity. Instead of taking the scientific method (These are the facts, now what conclusions can you draw from it?) Creationists seem to take the opposite route (This is the conclusion, what facts can we draw from it?).
Your so called "Theory" (Which it by the scientific meaning of the word is nowhere near of being) is Christian dogma. How you can claim anything else I can't even begin to comprehend.
You have a valid argument. I personally don’t like the term “scientific method” because I’ve heard people define it as needing a resolution and not leaving any room for the supernatural. In other words. If something can ONLY be explained by a supernatural force that we have no chance of comprehending, then the scientific methods demands that we come up with some ridiculous explanation in terms that we can understand. And I certainly believe that is true for evolution.
All the creationist and I.D. people I know look at the facts and draw the conclusion that the earth was created. Whether or not they were biased before or after doesn’t matter if the facts don’t match the conclusions.
I would make all the same arguments about atheism and evolution. But it’s pointless, lets just talk about the facts.
[QUOTE u='JilaX^' d='2008-08-25 18:00:30']That is just blatantly false. 100% of people that support the form of creationism you're advertising are Christians.[/Quote]
Actually there are a lot of Jews and Muslims, as well. But even if you WANT to say 100%. That’s fine, we can say 100%. I don’t care. It doesn’t effect the arguments.
Dawkins said it best when he said that believing in evolution Leads to atheism. Believing the world was creation definitely Leads to theism.
[QUOTE u='JilaX^' d='2008-08-25 18:00:30']Your entire theory is based solely upon Christianity. Instead of taking the scientific method (These are the facts, now what conclusions can you draw from it?) Creationists seem to take the opposite route (This is the conclusion, what facts can we draw from it?).
Your so called "Theory" (Which it by the scientific meaning of the word is nowhere near of being) is Christian dogma. How you can claim anything else I can't even begin to comprehend.[/QUOTE]
You have a valid argument. I personally don’t like the term “scientific method” because I’ve heard people define it as needing a resolution and not leaving any room for the supernatural. In other words. If something can ONLY be explained by a supernatural force that we have no chance of comprehending, then the scientific methods demands that we come up with some ridiculous explanation in terms that we can understand. And I certainly believe that is true for evolution.
All the creationist and I.D. people I know look at the facts and draw the conclusion that the earth was created. Whether or not they were biased before or after doesn’t matter if the facts don’t match the conclusions.
I would make all the same arguments about atheism and evolution. But it’s pointless, lets just talk about the facts.
4jacks wrote on Aug 27th, 2008 at 2:02pm :
I would make all the same arguments about atheism and evolution. But it’s pointless, lets just talk about the facts.
Then lets talk the facts then.
After all, it was you that first brought up Obama, gun control and atheism.
So, what predictions does creationism make?
How can creationism be falsified?
How does creationism explain the existance of ERVs?
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-08-27 14:02:15']
I would make all the same arguments about atheism and evolution. But it’s pointless, lets just talk about the facts.[/QUOTE]
Then lets talk the facts then.
After all, it was you that first brought up Obama, gun control and atheism.
So, what predictions does creationism make?
How can creationism be falsified?
How does creationism explain the existance of ERVs?
Sorry it’s been so long, lifes been crazy, School has started and I’m selling my house.
darthteet wrote on Aug 29th, 2008 at 6:43pm : So, what predictions does creationism make?
Basically the young earth theory predicts kind of the opposite of old earth theories. Where Old Earth will say the universe is circular and evolving and re-birthing it’s self. Young Earth says it was created once and it’s dying. We can see that when we study the universe. The universe is a finite amount of mass that is expanding, we see nothing being created. We see lots of stars die, but we don’t see them form.
Where evolution would say that over time life has gotten “better and better” What we see in real life is our immune systems getting worse and worse. We aren’t as strong and healthy as we use to be. Drugs have helped a lot (depending on who you ask) But Creation will predict that these random mutations slowly make us worse and worse, and not better and better. Our life spans will continue to get shorter and shorter.
I understand measuring our life spans is an impossible task, taken into account plagues, drugs, etc.
But even if you look at puberty, puberty keeps coming sooner and sooner for our children. We only have a few early documents referring to when women started getting their period, I’ll have to go look them up, I can’t find anything on the web, too many resources for the problems of early puberty. But the basic pattern that we see is that our children are growing up faster and faster. I don’t want to throw out numbers without first checking but I’m pretty sure it was Leonardo Di Vinci who record the average age of menstruation around 18y/o.
Creation also predicts that we will never see a Mountain Form. All we see is erosion.
Most Creationists will agree there is no life outside of Earth, So you can say that a prediction is that we won’t find intelligent life (or any life) from space.
Of course creation predicts that we will never see a species evolve. (Granted the theory claims millions of years) But hey since we record so much of present day stuff, maybe millions of years from now we can look back and say “Hey how come we’ve never seen a species evolve”
Along that lines is a beneficial mutation. I don’t think creationists will come right out and say “There will 100% certainly never be a beneficial mutation” but all the mutations we observe today are harmful and not helpful. Even when animals are born with extra appendages, they don’t ever quite seem to be beneficial.
darthteet wrote on Aug 29th, 2008 at 6:43pm :
How can creationism be falsified?
That’s a really good question. General Creation is just a theory on the origins of life. General Creationism just states that there is an outside force which created us, which unlike evolutionism isn’t tied to a whole bunch of factors that need to be in place. Even if we some how with 100% certainly disproved both Evolution and Young Earth and proved that the earth formed 100,000 years ago. And everyone in the world agreed on this fact that the earth was formed 100k years ago. Well both evolutionism and YEC would be shot. But that doesn’t answer the question of Creation versus some random physical formation. All the Christians, jews and muslims would be replaced by some cult who claim a giant turtle spit the universe out, and all the evolutionist would be replaced by some group that teach crystals spontaneously exploded into fish eggs or something.
That’s why are best talking points are really just about the age of the earth. You believe it’s really old, I believe it’s not. We can talk about that.
darthteet wrote on Aug 29th, 2008 at 6:43pm :
How does creationism explain the existance of ERVs?
Sorry that page doesn’t even have the word ERV’s the page I found just basically said, all creationist are morons and ERV’s prove it, and to check out that page, so I checked it out.
Here the guy seems to ramble on about some species of Corn, found in Mexico. All I have to say is that guy is an Idiot, and I have a really long rant on how bad genetically modified foods are, and how evil the seed industry is in America, and how American Corn is so messed up. I don’t know what kind of corn you guys got in the UK. But we literally have one type of corn in America, and it comes in two Colors, yellow and white.
REAL CORN comes in so many varieties it’s not funny! Mexico still has a lot, Round Corn, and Colored Corn, Fat Corn, Skinny Corn, Blue Corn, Red Corn. The seed industry in America Screwed us over and Standarized our corn =(
Sorry it’s been so long, lifes been crazy, School has started and I’m selling my house.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-29 18:43:18'] So, what predictions does creationism make?[/quote]
Basically the young earth theory predicts kind of the opposite of old earth theories. Where Old Earth will say the universe is circular and evolving and re-birthing it’s self. Young Earth says it was created once and it’s dying. We can see that when we study the universe. The universe is a finite amount of mass that is expanding, we see nothing being created. We see lots of stars die, but we don’t see them form.
Where evolution would say that over time life has gotten “better and better” What we see in real life is our immune systems getting worse and worse. We aren’t as strong and healthy as we use to be. Drugs have helped a lot (depending on who you ask) But Creation will predict that these random mutations slowly make us worse and worse, and not better and better. Our life spans will continue to get shorter and shorter.
I understand measuring our life spans is an impossible task, taken into account plagues, drugs, etc.
But even if you look at puberty, puberty keeps coming sooner and sooner for our children. We only have a few early documents referring to when women started getting their period, I’ll have to go look them up, I can’t find anything on the web, too many resources for the problems of early puberty. But the basic pattern that we see is that our children are growing up faster and faster. I don’t want to throw out numbers without first checking but I’m pretty sure it was Leonardo Di Vinci who record the average age of menstruation around 18y/o.
Creation also predicts that we will never see a Mountain Form. All we see is erosion.
Most Creationists will agree there is no life outside of Earth, So you can say that a prediction is that we won’t find intelligent life (or any life) from space.
Of course creation predicts that we will never see a species evolve. (Granted the theory claims millions of years) But hey since we record so much of present day stuff, maybe millions of years from now we can look back and say “Hey how come we’ve never seen a species evolve”
Along that lines is a beneficial mutation. I don’t think creationists will come right out and say “There will 100% certainly never be a beneficial mutation” but all the mutations we observe today are harmful and not helpful. Even when animals are born with extra appendages, they don’t ever quite seem to be beneficial.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-29 18:43:18']
How can creationism be falsified?[/quote]
That’s a really good question. General Creation is just a theory on the origins of life. General Creationism just states that there is an outside force which created us, which unlike evolutionism isn’t tied to a whole bunch of factors that need to be in place. Even if we some how with 100% certainly disproved both Evolution and Young Earth and proved that the earth formed 100,000 years ago. And everyone in the world agreed on this fact that the earth was formed 100k years ago. Well both evolutionism and YEC would be shot. But that doesn’t answer the question of Creation versus some random physical formation. All the Christians, jews and muslims would be replaced by some cult who claim a giant turtle spit the universe out, and all the evolutionist would be replaced by some group that teach crystals spontaneously exploded into fish eggs or something.
That’s why are best talking points are really just about the age of the earth. You believe it’s really old, I believe it’s not. We can talk about that.
[QUOTE u='darthteet' d='2008-08-29 18:43:18']
How does creationism explain the existance of ERVs?[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry Teet, I’m really not understanding your question. Or how it relates to Evolution versus Creation. I’ve googled “ERV’s Evolution” and all I really got was a link to this website.
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2007/10/they-selected-teosinteand-got-corn.html
Sorry that page doesn’t even have the word ERV’s the page I found just basically said, all creationist are morons and ERV’s prove it, and to check out that page, so I checked it out.
Here the guy seems to ramble on about some species of Corn, found in Mexico. All I have to say is that guy is an Idiot, and I have a really long rant on how bad genetically modified foods are, and how evil the seed industry is in America, and how American Corn is so messed up. I don’t know what kind of corn you guys got in the UK. But we literally have one type of corn in America, and it comes in two Colors, yellow and white.
REAL CORN comes in so many varieties it’s not funny! Mexico still has a lot, Round Corn, and Colored Corn, Fat Corn, Skinny Corn, Blue Corn, Red Corn. The seed industry in America Screwed us over and Standarized our corn =(
So from what I can tell from the webpage is that this guy found a funky form of Corn and say’s “see look how different the corn is!”
But it really just goes back to the micro evolution versus macro evolution arguments.
Personally I think DOGS are a better example that the corn. We have dogs that look like little rats and weigh less then 3 pounds, and we have huge real dogs that weigh over a hundred pounds. We did this by selectively breeding for hundreds of years. But dogs are still dogs they all bark and sniff each others butts. If dogs could have evolved, they most certainly would have by now, we would be flying on winged dogs, the way the have been so selectively breed.
But perhaps you have a different explanation on how ERV’s relate to evolution?
So from what I can tell from the webpage is that this guy found a funky form of Corn and say’s “see look how different the corn is!”
But it really just goes back to the micro evolution versus macro evolution arguments.
Personally I think DOGS are a better example that the corn. We have dogs that look like little rats and weigh less then 3 pounds, and we have huge real dogs that weigh over a hundred pounds. We did this by selectively breeding for hundreds of years. But dogs are still dogs they all bark and sniff each others butts. If dogs could have evolved, they most certainly would have by now, we would be flying on winged dogs, the way the have been so selectively breed.
But perhaps you have a different explanation on how ERV’s relate to evolution?
4jacks wrote on Sep 12th, 2008 at 2:48pm :
Basically the young earth theory predicts kind of the opposite of old earth
theories. Where Old Earth will say the universe is circular and evolving and
re-birthing it’s self. Young Earth says it was created once and it’s dying. We
can see that when we study the universe. The universe is a finite amount of
mass that is expanding, we see nothing being created. We see lots of stars die,
but we don’t see them form.
We don’t see stars being formed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation#Observ ations
‘Old earth’ doesn’t say that the universe is being re-birthed.Truth be told, we don’t have a clue what
happened for the first Planck time of the universes creation, so how would we
know that our universe is cyclic?
Besides, surely the fact that we can see light from 10
billion years away puts a minimum age on the universe?Surely that would falsify a young universe?
4jacks wrote on Sep 12th, 2008 at 2:48pm :
Where evolution would say that over time life has gotten “better and better”
What we see in real life is our immune systems getting worse and worse. We
aren’t as strong and healthy as we use to be. Drugs have helped a lot
(depending on who you ask) But Creation will predict that these random
mutations slowly make us worse and worse, and not better and better. Our life
spans will continue to get shorter and shorter.
That’s not what evolution says.Evolution simply says that those populations
with a reproductive advantage over another population will thrive, creating a
change in allele frequency amongst the species.We are healthier and stronger than in the past.Not that that even matters, because being
small and weak might be an evolutionary advantage in some situations. E.g. in a
food shortage, being a small rodent would be more beneficial than being a large
reptile.
Also, what about Sickle cell anaemia?A mutation that has dramatically increased
the survival rate amongst populations living in areas of Africa
where malaria is endemic?
I guess then that when they
observe these mountains growing, what they actually meant to say was shrinking?
So another creationism prediction
falsified.Not doing so well here.
4jacks wrote on Sep 12th, 2008 at 2:48pm :
Of course creation predicts that we will never see a species evolve. (Granted
the theory claims millions of years) But hey since we record so much of present
day stuff, maybe millions of years from now we can look back and say “Hey how
come we’ve never seen a species evolve”
4jacks wrote on Dec 31st, 1969 at 7:00pm :
Along that lines is a beneficial mutation. I don’t think creationists will come
right out and say “There will 100% certainly never be a beneficial mutation”
but all the mutations we observe today are harmful and not helpful. Even when
animals are born with extra appendages, they don’t ever quite seem to be
beneficial.
Except sickle cell anaemia in
areas where malaria is endemic…
That is a single mutation which is
clearly beneficial.Therefore, we have
observed one very clear, very recent instance
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-09-12 14:48:48']
Basically the young earth theory predicts kind of the opposite of old earth
theories. Where Old Earth will say the universe is circular and evolving and
re-birthing it’s self. Young Earth says it was created once and it’s dying. We
can see that when we study the universe. The universe is a finite amount of
mass that is expanding, we see nothing being created. We see lots of stars die,
but we don’t see them form. [/QUOTE]
We don’t see stars being formed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation#Observations
‘Old earth’ doesn’t say that the universe is being re-birthed.Truth be told, we don’t have a clue what
happened for the first Planck time of the universes creation, so how would we
know that our universe is cyclic?
Besides, surely the fact that we can see light from 10
billion years away puts a minimum age on the universe?Surely that would falsify a young universe?
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-09-12 14:48:48']
Where evolution would say that over time life has gotten “better and better”
What we see in real life is our immune systems getting worse and worse. We
aren’t as strong and healthy as we use to be. Drugs have helped a lot
(depending on who you ask) But Creation will predict that these random
mutations slowly make us worse and worse, and not better and better. Our life
spans will continue to get shorter and shorter. [/QUOTE]
That’s not what evolution says.Evolution simply says that those populations
with a reproductive advantage over another population will thrive, creating a
change in allele frequency amongst the species.We are healthier and stronger than in the past.Not that that even matters, because being
small and weak might be an evolutionary advantage in some situations. E.g. in a
food shortage, being a small rodent would be more beneficial than being a large
reptile.
Also, what about Sickle cell anaemia?A mutation that has dramatically increased
the survival rate amongst populations living in areas of Africa
where malaria is endemic?
I guess then that when they
observe these mountains growing, what they actually meant to say was shrinking?
So another creationism prediction
falsified.Not doing so well here.
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-09-12 14:48:48']
Of course creation predicts that we will never see a species evolve. (Granted
the theory claims millions of years) But hey since we record so much of present
day stuff, maybe millions of years from now we can look back and say “Hey how
come we’ve never seen a species evolve”
[/QUOTE]
I guess you and the entire
scientific community have a different definition of evolve then.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml
[QUOTE u='4jacks' d='2008-09-12
14:48:48']
Along that lines is a beneficial mutation. I don’t think creationists will come
right out and say “There will 100% certainly never be a beneficial mutation”
but all the mutations we observe today are harmful and not helpful. Even when
animals are born with extra appendages, they don’t ever quite seem to be
beneficial. [/QUOTE]
Except sickle cell anaemia in
areas where malaria is endemic…
That is a single mutation which is
clearly beneficial.Therefore, we have
observed one very clear, very recent instance
That is a single mutation which is clearly beneficial. Therefore, we have observed one very clear, very recent instance where a single mutation has been beneficial. Another creationism prediction falsified.
Let me give you an analogy. Say I have a sheet of paper. I photocopy it 100 times. Then, I accidentally bump the photocopier, leading to a small blurred word. I then photocopy this another 100 times. I then get a coffee ring on the paper. I photocopy this 100 times. I then tear the paper, yet still photocopy it 100 times. I am left able to trace the history of the paper through these markings. I.e. the order in which they came and how they are related. DNA is the same as the bit of paper, with the endogenous retro viruses being the marks on the paper. I’m struggling to explain it in words, so I drew you a diagram.
Can you see how 1 and 2 are related? Can you see how we could figure out at what stage they were the same? Can you see how all the papers share a ‘common ancestor’? If not ask me to try to explain it a bit better and I’ll see what I can do.
So, if I counted correctly, you proposed four possible predictions of creationism: we wouldn’t see stars forming, we wouldn’t see species evolving, we wouldn’t see mountains forming, and we wouldn’t see any beneficial mutations. Ignoring the fact that you didn’t even propose an alternative mechanism for the creation of mountains, the diversity of life or stellar formation, these things have all been falsified. Care to try again?
That is a single mutation which is clearly beneficial. Therefore, we have observed one very clear, very recent instance where a single mutation has been beneficial. Another creationism prediction falsified.
Let me give you an analogy. Say I have a sheet of paper. I photocopy it 100 times. Then, I accidentally bump the photocopier, leading to a small blurred word. I then photocopy this another 100 times. I then get a coffee ring on the paper. I photocopy this 100 times. I then tear the paper, yet still photocopy it 100 times. I am left able to trace the history of the paper through these markings. I.e. the order in which they came and how they are related. DNA is the same as the bit of paper, with the endogenous retro viruses being the marks on the paper. I’m struggling to explain it in words, so I drew you a diagram.
Can you see how 1 and 2 are related? Can you see how we could figure out at what stage they were the same? Can you see how all the papers share a ‘common ancestor’? If not ask me to try to explain it a bit better and I’ll see what I can do.
So, if I counted correctly, you proposed four possible predictions of creationism: we wouldn’t see stars forming, we wouldn’t see species evolving, we wouldn’t see mountains forming, and we wouldn’t see any beneficial mutations. Ignoring the fact that you didn’t even propose an alternative mechanism for the creation of mountains, the diversity of life or stellar formation, these things have all been falsified. Care to try again?
4jacks, I am a very strong christian, but I dont see why you are so concerned with old earth vs young earth. The fact that we can see all the stars that we see kinda proves that the universe is several billions of years old, that or God sped up the speed of light when he created earth. But you can not tell me that evolution is more logical than creation (Please dont reply is you are retarded, I know what im talking about) It all comes down to the origin of the cell, and of life. The conditions before the big bang would cast out any chance of a preexisting cell, so now we have post-big bang. Somehow somewhere on earth, the first cell and living organisms needed to have formed. Evolutionist evidence for the origin of life is the weakest of all of their theories. Everything hinges on presuppositions and there's is that everything evolved from single-celled organisms.... well if you really want to look into the mathematical chances of this happening, go right ahead.... but once you see the chances, NEVER EVER say that creationism is more unlikely than anything. Im tired of arrogant pricks that think they are smart because they can post a link (Mostly of unreliable sources) and steal arguments from actual experts. Anything that can be explained by evolution can be explained by creationists. You post pictures of similar looking skeletons and say evolution, I like at it and say that God did it right, why change it. Your strongest points should be pointing out the species like homo erectus and Neanderthals, and creationists should decided if adam and eve were neanderthals, or homo sapiens
4jacks, I am a very strong christian, but I dont see why you are so concerned with old earth vs young earth. The fact that we can see all the stars that we see kinda proves that the universe is several billions of years old, that or God sped up the speed of light when he created earth. But you can not tell me that evolution is more logical than creation (Please dont reply is you are retarded, I know what im talking about) It all comes down to the origin of the cell, and of life. The conditions before the big bang would cast out any chance of a preexisting cell, so now we have post-big bang. Somehow somewhere on earth, the first cell and living organisms needed to have formed. Evolutionist evidence for the origin of life is the weakest of all of their theories. Everything hinges on presuppositions and there's is that everything evolved from single-celled organisms.... well if you really want to look into the mathematical chances of this happening, go right ahead.... but once you see the chances, NEVER EVER say that creationism is more unlikely than anything. Im tired of arrogant pricks that think they are smart because they can post a link (Mostly of unreliable sources) and steal arguments from actual experts. Anything that can be explained by evolution can be explained by creationists. You post pictures of similar looking skeletons and say evolution, I like at it and say that God did it right, why change it. Your strongest points should be pointing out the species like homo erectus and Neanderthals, and creationists should decided if adam and eve were neanderthals, or homo sapiens
Wrathlegion wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 2:25am : 4jacks, I am a very strong christian, but I dont see why you are so concerned with old earth vs young earth. The fact that we can see all the stars that we see kinda proves that the universe is several billions of years old, that or God sped up the speed of light when he created earth. But you can not tell me that evolution is more logical than creation (Please dont reply is you are retarded, I know what im talking about) It all comes down to the origin of the cell, and of life. The conditions before the big bang would cast out any chance of a preexisting cell, so now we have post-big bang. Somehow somewhere on earth, the first cell and living organisms needed to have formed. Evolutionist evidence for the origin of life is the weakest of all of their theories. Everything hinges on presuppositions and there's is that everything evolved from single-celled organisms.... well if you really want to look into the mathematical chances of this happening, go right ahead.... but once you see the chances, NEVER EVER say that creationism is more unlikely than anything. Im tired of arrogant pricks that think they are smart because they can post a link (Mostly of unreliable sources) and steal arguments from actual experts. Anything that can be explained by evolution can be explained by creationists. You post pictures of similar looking skeletons and say evolution, I like at it and say that God did it right, why change it. Your strongest points should be pointing out the species like homo erectus and Neanderthals, and creationists should decided if adam and eve were neanderthals, or homo sapiens
"presuppositions and that everything everythign formed from single celled organisims"
FAIL.
Scientists have found life (that isnt a fossil) on some of the other celestial boides in our solar system. For example, on Titan, fourth moon of Saturn, there are very basic organisms, formed out of nitrogen and methane, thar have been replicated in labs and we can say, yes, there is life out there, albeit it is not (visibly) intelligent.
And Enceladus, another moon of satrun, was observed to have plumes of water shooting up from the surface, thus there IS the possiblity of life, evolving from single celled organisms... as soon as our d00dz at NASA send an observer there.
[QUOTE u='Wrathlegion' d='2008-11-30 02:25:18']4jacks, I am a very strong christian, but I dont see why you are so concerned with old earth vs young earth. The fact that we can see all the stars that we see kinda proves that the universe is several billions of years old, that or God sped up the speed of light when he created earth. But you can not tell me that evolution is more logical than creation (Please dont reply is you are retarded, I know what im talking about) It all comes down to the origin of the cell, and of life. The conditions before the big bang would cast out any chance of a preexisting cell, so now we have post-big bang. Somehow somewhere on earth, the first cell and living organisms needed to have formed. Evolutionist evidence for the origin of life is the weakest of all of their theories. Everything hinges on presuppositions and there's is that everything evolved from single-celled organisms.... well if you really want to look into the mathematical chances of this happening, go right ahead.... but once you see the chances, NEVER EVER say that creationism is more unlikely than anything. Im tired of arrogant pricks that think they are smart because they can post a link (Mostly of unreliable sources) and steal arguments from actual experts. Anything that can be explained by evolution can be explained by creationists. You post pictures of similar looking skeletons and say evolution, I like at it and say that God did it right, why change it. Your strongest points should be pointing out the species like homo erectus and Neanderthals, and creationists should decided if adam and eve were neanderthals, or homo sapiens[/QUOTE]
"presuppositions and that everything everythign formed from single celled organisims"
FAIL.
Scientists have found life (that isnt a fossil) on some of the other celestial boides in our solar system. For example, on Titan, fourth moon of Saturn, there are very basic organisms, formed out of nitrogen and methane, thar have been replicated in labs and we can say, yes, there is life out there, albeit it is not (visibly) intelligent.
And Enceladus, another moon of satrun, was observed to have plumes of water shooting up from the surface, thus there IS the possiblity of life, evolving from single celled organisms... as soon as our d00dz at NASA send an observer there.
Ill keep it simple (damn wall of text answers)
so far I havent seen magic happen
and obviously everyones prayers arent answered, else none of us would be alive right now
Ill keep it simple (damn wall of text answers)
so far I havent seen magic happen
and obviously everyones prayers arent answered, else none of us would be alive right now
| My Profile
Creationists are more retarded than retarded people group
