Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

See, that's what I'm saying. You have all these theories that may or may not need each other. But they just happen to fit together. Researched by different people at different times in different places of the world.

And that's more valid then different men, at different times, at different parts of the world writing the bible because of what?

Would you agree that the Evolutionary theory is still sound without the ooze?

If anyone felt a small Earth tremor a moment ago, it was due to me slapping my forehead.


Look Swift. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

Evolutionary Theory deals with the evolution of life from one form. The Primordial Soup was not alive. Ever. It contained chemicals required to form life - much as your blood does - but wasn't alive. Cut yourself open and poor your blood into a test tube. Is it alive? No. Does it contain organic chemicals. Yes. The same goes for the Soup.

Evolutionary theory DOES NOT CARE where life started. All that is required is that a species of lifeform goes in one end and either becomes extinct, persists or is replaced by lifeforms which are more suited to their environment at the other end. Primordial Soup is not a species of lifeform since it was never alive and so it plays absolutely NO PART in Evolutionary Theory.

If one were to remove "Primordial Soup" - it never existed, whatever - and replace it with bugs which hitch-hiked to Earth on a meteor, Evolutionary Theory would still function as, whatever the method employed to get life onto the planet, life on the planet is subject to Evolutionary Theory.

Similarly, the existence of the Earth through the Accretion Disk theory is not beholden upon the Big Bang. The physics surrounding the Big Bang do not play any part in the physics surrounding the Accretion Disk so, the Accretion Disk theory would still be valid if the universe didn't start in a Big Bang, but was instead farted out of the arse of a giant space weevil. All that is required for the Accretion Disk theory is an awful lot of stuff and gravity. Accretion Disk theory doesn't care where the awful lot of stuff and gravity came from, just that it is there.


What you have written regarding study vs. storytelling is laughable. People studying how things function in the Universe but studying different parts of it find that all of their theories fit together. Almost as if they were all studying how things function in the Universe, but studying different parts of it. Gosh.

That's like saying if 100 people put together a jigsaw, then the picture they come up with is a no more valid way of creating the finished jigsaw than people drawing what they think the jigsaw should look like - or rather what the Holy Ghost says the jigsaw should look like to them - despite the fact that the patterns are totally different. The people doing the jigsaw have pieces which they can study and see how they fit into other pieces, gradually building up a picture. The people drawing what they think the jigsaw should look like have nothing and are making it up as they go along, but still claim that their finished product is correct because God told them.



Now, you tell me something. If I were to go back in time to, ooooh, 40AD with a remote control LCD television/VCR and a generator and play a video of Superbowl XXXIX, what would the locals think? Maybe Luke (of the "Gospel According to Saint" fame would see it. What would his explanation be? Now he writes it down and it becomes part of the New Testament.

Would you believe HIS account of how pictures from God of a wondrous sport appeared on a thin tablet of grey rock and glass, or would you believe Sony when they tell you how the images appear on the screen?

Put simply, you're believing in the fevered imaginings of primitive peoples, attempting to explain things they don't understand above the writings of modern man, who is checked at every turn by his colleagues and funding institutions, who has studied things, gained a knowledge of their workings and is explaining how they ACTUALLY function.


Have you EVER heard of "Occam's Razor"?

The question was not directed ONLY to you. If anyone can answer, I would like to know.

Do not confuse molecular oxygen with elemental oxygen.

Amino acids cannot exist without elemental oxygen. They can exist without molecular oxygen. Elemental oxygen can also exist without molecular oxygen.

 

[TwinTurboJay]

"Don't forget that dog's came from wolves, the theory is that man kept the most docile friendly puppies, and bred from them until a domestic animal was created"
with about 4or 5 species of wolves world wide, how did such a grand compilation of Domestic dogs come to be ?

 

[Famine]

Oh my stars...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Have you EVER heard of "Occam's Razor"?[/color][/b]

If I remember correctly:

Two theories or explanations, all else being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

I'm not sure what you're getting at...

Do not confuse molecular oxygen with elemental oxygen.

Amino acids cannot exist without elemental oxygen. They can exist without molecular oxygen. Elemental oxygen can also exist without molecular oxygen.

OK. Thanks. 👍

 

[Famine]

If I remember correctly:

Two theories or explanations, all else being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

I'm not sure what you're getting at...

Actually, that's what most people think it is, but it isn't.

Occam's Razor is "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" - Do not needlessly multiply entities.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

with about 4or 5 species of wolves world wide, how did such a grand compilation of Domestic dogs come to be ?

Oh my stars...

Ditto

 

[Danoff]

Evolutionary Theory deals with the evolution of life from one form. The Primordial Soup was not alive. Ever. It contained chemicals required to form life - much as your blood does - but wasn't alive. Cut yourself open and poor your blood into a test tube. Is it alive? No. Does it contain organic chemicals. Yes. The same goes for the Soup.

Evolutionary theory DOES NOT CARE where life started. All that is required is that a species of lifeform goes in one end and either becomes extinct, persists or is replaced by lifeforms which are more suited to their environment at the other end. Primordial Soup is not a species of lifeform since it was never alive and so it plays absolutely NO PART in Evolutionary Theory.

If one were to remove "Primordial Soup" - it never existed, whatever - and replace it with bugs which hitch-hiked to Earth on a meteor, Evolutionary Theory would still function as, whatever the method employed to get life onto the planet, life on the planet is subject to Evolutionary Theory.

Similarly, the existence of the Earth through the Accretion Disk theory is not beholden upon the Big Bang. The physics surrounding the Big Bang do not play any part in the physics surrounding the Accretion Disk so, the Accretion Disk theory would still be valid if the universe didn't start in a Big Bang, but was instead farted out of the arse of a giant space weevil. All that is required for the Accretion Disk theory is an awful lot of stuff and gravity. Accretion Disk theory doesn't care where the awful lot of stuff and gravity came from, just that it is there.


What you have written regarding study vs. storytelling is laughable. People studying how things function in the Universe but studying different parts of it find that all of their theories fit together. Almost as if they were all studying how things function in the Universe, but studying different parts of it. Gosh.

That's like saying if 100 people put together a jigsaw, then the picture they come up with is a no more valid way of creating the finished jigsaw than people drawing what they think the jigsaw should look like - or rather what the Holy Ghost says the jigsaw should look like to them - despite the fact that the patterns are totally different. The people doing the jigsaw have pieces which they can study and see how they fit into other pieces, gradually building up a picture. The people drawing what they think the jigsaw should look like have nothing and are making it up as they go along, but still claim that their finished product is correct because God told them.



Now, you tell me something. If I were to go back in time to, ooooh, 40AD with a remote control LCD television/VCR and a generator and play a video of Superbowl XXXIX, what would the locals think? Maybe Luke (of the "Gospel According to Saint" fame would see it. What would his explanation be? Now he writes it down and it becomes part of the New Testament.

Would you believe HIS account of how pictures from God of a wondrous sport appeared on a thin tablet of grey rock and glass, or would you believe Sony when they tell you how the images appear on the screen?

Put simply, you're believing in the fevered imaginings of primitive peoples, attempting to explain things they don't understand above the writings of modern man, who is checked at every turn by his colleagues and funding institutions, who has studied things, gained a knowledge of their workings and is explaining how they ACTUALLY function.

👍 👍 👍 👍 👍

 

[lsucowboy]

with about 4or 5 species of wolves world wide, how did such a grand compilation of Domestic dogs come to be ?

Need some help with that trigger?

 

[Swift]

If anyone felt a small Earth tremor a moment ago, it was due to me slapping my forehead.


Look Swift. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

Evolutionary Theory deals with the evolution of life from one form. The Primordial Soup was not alive. Ever. It contained chemicals required to form life - much as your blood does - but wasn't alive. Cut yourself open and poor your blood into a test tube. Is it alive? No. Does it contain organic chemicals. Yes. The same goes for the Soup.

Evolutionary theory DOES NOT CARE where life started. All that is required is that a species of lifeform goes in one end and either becomes extinct, persists or is replaced by lifeforms which are more suited to their environment at the other end. Primordial Soup is not a species of lifeform since it was never alive and so it plays absolutely NO PART in Evolutionary Theory.

If one were to remove "Primordial Soup" - it never existed, whatever - and replace it with bugs which hitch-hiked to Earth on a meteor, Evolutionary Theory would still function as, whatever the method employed to get life onto the planet, life on the planet is subject to Evolutionary Theory.

Similarly, the existence of the Earth through the Accretion Disk theory is not beholden upon the Big Bang. The physics surrounding the Big Bang do not play any part in the physics surrounding the Accretion Disk so, the Accretion Disk theory would still be valid if the universe didn't start in a Big Bang, but was instead farted out of the arse of a giant space weevil. All that is required for the Accretion Disk theory is an awful lot of stuff and gravity. Accretion Disk theory doesn't care where the awful lot of stuff and gravity came from, just that it is there.


What you have written regarding study vs. storytelling is laughable. People studying how things function in the Universe but studying different parts of it find that all of their theories fit together. Almost as if they were all studying how things function in the Universe, but studying different parts of it. Gosh.

That's like saying if 100 people put together a jigsaw, then the picture they come up with is a no more valid way of creating the finished jigsaw than people drawing what they think the jigsaw should look like - or rather what the Holy Ghost says the jigsaw should look like to them - despite the fact that the patterns are totally different. The people doing the jigsaw have pieces which they can study and see how they fit into other pieces, gradually building up a picture. The people drawing what they think the jigsaw should look like have nothing and are making it up as they go along, but still claim that their finished product is correct because God told them.



Now, you tell me something. If I were to go back in time to, ooooh, 40AD with a remote control LCD television/VCR and a generator and play a video of Superbowl XXXIX, what would the locals think? Maybe Luke (of the "Gospel According to Saint" fame would see it. What would his explanation be? Now he writes it down and it becomes part of the New Testament.

Would you believe HIS account of how pictures from God of a wondrous sport appeared on a thin tablet of grey rock and glass, or would you believe Sony when they tell you how the images appear on the screen?

Put simply, you're believing in the fevered imaginings of primitive peoples, attempting to explain things they don't understand above the writings of modern man, who is checked at every turn by his colleagues and funding institutions, who has studied things, gained a knowledge of their workings and is explaining how they ACTUALLY function.


Have you EVER heard of "Occam's Razor"?



Do not confuse molecular oxygen with elemental oxygen.

Amino acids cannot exist without elemental oxygen. They can exist without molecular oxygen. Elemental oxygen can also exist without molecular oxygen.

Right so you just explained away the reason for all the theories to not work together. Logical or not, you explained it away. I explain devine creation through scriptural logic and all of a sudden it's so different. I think the lack of knowledge of you and others about scripture is more immense then my ignorance about evolutionary theory.

I have yet to see one excellent reason to refute the bible. You haven't made one. Just stuff about, "people can't live that long" or "God can't make a man that fast" and other stuff that has zero bearing on the validity of it. So I find myself slapping my own head wondering why nobody here will even ask what the real deal is instead of assuming they know because Catholosism has corrupted what many people think about organized religion.

If you want to argue this point fine, but you can't dismiss devine creation as a possibility when you don't understand it. Just like I didn't understand the evolutionary theory.

BTW, I've never heard of anyone traveling through time. So how is that possibly a reasonable argument. That was rather dumb coming from someone that has come off as educated.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

...and Famine, you didn't quite make it clear as to how Ockham's Razor is related to the Theory of Evolution...

 

[Sage]

Right so you just explained away the reason for all the theories to not work together. Logical or not, you explained it away.

No he didn't. He explained how they can work independently, but do coexist to create what we have today.

I really think you're missing the whole point of the argument. We shouldn't even be arguing about this, because it has nothing to do with the plausibility of evolution or creation.

Let me put it this way: Electrical physics can work independently of mechanical physics. Yet, to get a car to work, you need to have both of them. Just because they can work independently of each other doesn't mean they can't work together.

I explain devine creation through scriptural logic and all of a sudden it's so different. I think the lack of knowledge of you and others about scripture is more immense then my ignorance about evolutionary theory.

That's the problem – to us, science is logic (the scientific process, that is), while you don't accept it as such (but you do accept several writers' accounts as logic).

I have yet to see one excellent reason to refute the bible. You haven't made one. Just stuff about, "people can't live that long" or "God can't make a man that fast" and other stuff that has zero bearing on the validity of it. So I find myself slapping my own head wondering why nobody here will even ask what the real deal is instead of assuming they know because Catholosism has corrupted what many people think about organized religion.

Again, here's the problem – You can't refute that which does not exist. It's physically impossible to prove the nonexistence of a God (it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything).

But, we can show that other theories are infinitely more plausible and logical (which is what Famine's been doing – and I think you happened to miss the part where he said "Certain simple compounds can be formed in these conditions, and given the size of the molecules compared to the size of the planet the probability of these compounds forming is 1, and assimilate the raw materials around them to manufacture more of themselves", which is pretty instrumental to this conversation).

BTW, I've never heard of anyone traveling through time. So how is that possibly a reasonable argument. That was rather dumb coming from someone that has come off as educated.

Swift, you're digging yourself in a hole here – anybody who knows as much about science as Famine does knows about wormholes, which does make time travel possible (we don't have the means to do so yet though).

...and Famine, you didn't quite make it clear as to how Ockham's Razor is related to the Theory of Evolution...

It doesn't have anything to do with evolution… he was making a point that Swift's making this way more complicated than it is.

 

[Famine]

BTW, I've never heard of anyone traveling through time. So how is that possibly a reasonable argument.

It was an illustrative - which you missed the point of entirely.


A television is a slightly complicated device. We have the tools today to understand how they work. 2,000 years ago they didn't. It would be explained away as "magic".

The world is exactly as complex today as it was 2,000 years ago. But today we have better tools to understand how it works. At the time the Bible was written, they didn't and explained it away as "magic", of a "Divine" origin. And you are believing this 2,000 year old account, from a marginalised sect, of how everything was created by magic over the explanations and verified findings of people with better tools and countless checks to make sure they can't just make things up.

And yet whose account of how a TV works would you accept?

Rational?

 

[ledhed]

I have yet to see one excellent reason to refute the bible.

1 ).900 year old man .
2 ). creation of Earth AND universe in 6 days despite all evidence to the contrary.
3 ). The whole of the Ark story .
4 ) . the story of Adam and Eve in its entirety .
5). The dude in the big fishys or whales belly story ...


There's five EASY reasons just taken from recent posts .
Think about the 900 year old dude not to mention methusila ....XVII dude says the Earth is 6000 years old ( add THAT to reasons ) So some really well built people were runnin loose not all that long ago..So WHAT HAPPENED ? Why are we stuck with these measly 70 to 80 year ave. lifespans ? Did we DEVOLVE ? what changed ? Diet ? Enviroment ? God voided the warrantee ?

 

[Swift]

1 ).900 year old man .
2 ). creation of Earth AND universe in 6 days despite all evidence to the contrary.
3 ). The whole of the Ark story .
4 ) . the story of Adam and Eve in its entirety .
5). The dude in the big fishys or whales belly story ...


There's five EASY reasons just taken from recent posts .
Think about the 900 year old dude not to mention methusila ....XVII dude says the Earth is 6000 years old ( add THAT to reasons ) So some really well built people were runnin loose not all that long ago..So WHAT HAPPENED ? Why are we stuck with these measly 70 to 80 year ave. lifespans ? Did we DEVOLVE ? what changed ? Diet ? Enviroment ? God voided the warrantee ?

1) Prove to me, scientifically, that there were NEVER 900 year old people
2) You can't disprove that.
3) Again, you can't disprove it.
4) You like crawling out of the sludge better?
5) There have been other documented cases of sailors being swollowed and surviving.

Famine: Yep, everything is as complicated at it was back then. But would you please site an instance that was called "magic" You still haven't done that yet.

BTW, some of the old testament writings go back as far as 4,500 years. Just so you know.

Swift, you're digging yourself in a hole here – anybody who knows as much about science as Famine does knows about wormholes, which does make time travel possible (we don't have the means to do so yet though).

Um...so. You believe in something that nobody has done or even attempted. But I believe that there is a creator and a plan for this universe and I'm not logical at all?

 

[Famine]

4) You like crawling out of the sludge better?

Like, dislike, it doesn't matter.

One has scientific plausibility. The other doesn't.

5) There have been other documented cases of sailors being swollowed and surviving.

Where? When? Evidence please.

Famine: Yep, everything is as complicated at it was back then. But would you please site an instance that was called "magic" You still haven't done that yet.

You're still missing the point here.

How would Luke tell you how a television works? How would a Sony engineer tell you how a television works?

Which version would you believe? Why?

BTW, some of the old testament writings go back as far as 4,500 years. Just so you know.

BTW some cave paintings go back as far as 35,000 years. Just so you know.

Out of interest, does that mean there's 1,500 years (or two generations, if you believe that Adam lived to 900) of recorded Biblical human history without ANY eyewitness evidence?

I also enjoy the Creationists' Cry "You can't prove it!". It's their response to anything scientific. Yet none of them see the irony inherent in that statement.

 

[Touring Mars]

1) Prove to me, scientifically, that there were NEVER 900 year old people

To my knowledge, there has never been any remains of any member of the species homo sapiens discovered that can be shown to have lived for much longer than humans can live today... it is not difficult to work out how old a person was when they died, by a plethora of techniques... but even with a massive margin of error, say 100 plus or minus 100, there has never been a human live that long. That's proof enough for me... saying that there COULD have been a 900 yr old person is a bit like saying that there COULD have been a 100 ft tall person as well... just because we haven't ever found the remains, doesn't mean that they didn't ever exist, right? Wrong... the much more plausible explanation for the reason we have never found the remains of a 900 yr old person before is because they never have existed, ever... Unless Adam was actually a Giant Redwood tree, he wouldn't have lived for that long... I just assume the bible is talking metaphorically, as taken literally, it's simply not true.

 

[Swift]

Like, dislike, it doesn't matter.

One has scientific plausibility. The other doesn't.



Where? When? Evidence please.



You're still missing the point here.

How would Luke tell you how a television works? How would a Sony engineer tell you how a television works?

Which version would you believe? Why?



BTW some cave paintings go back as far as 35,000 years. Just so you know.

Out of interest, does that mean there's 1,500 years (or two generations, if you believe that Adam lived to 900) of recorded Biblical human history without ANY eyewitness evidence?

FAmine, your absolute refusual to even ponder the concept of a being greater then yourself blinds you to even the most remote possibilities of Devine wisdom.

Everyone says I'm making it harder and more complex. Devine Creation is MUCH more simple then all the ooze, bangs and evolution could ever be.

You guys have faith to believe that a bunch of people that are dead or that you'll probably never meet have given you good info. While I believe a document, written two thousand years ago, inspired by God and written by men. I really got a kick out of someone mentioning the dinosaurs. He didn't mention elephants in the garden either, but we have elephants now don't we?

There is more then one type of logic. What really scares me about you guys is that you only have faith in what you can see. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist. Although wormholes can travel through time even though nobody has done it or figured out a way to do it. What takes more faith?

Bottom Line: Evolutionist want to believe they came from themselves by accident. Creationist want to believe that they came from God with a plan. You can't disprove the bible, though you think you can. And I can't disprove your scientific findings, though I find most of them way out there. So where does that leave us? I was formed by the hand of God from the dust of the ground. You were formed from the sludge of the earth, an alien bug or whatever else it was that may have become man. Oh well, enjoy it. I really don't see any reason in continuing this discussion as none of the evolutionists will even consider creation.

I HAVE considered evolution. I was not always saved and believed very strongly in evolution for the reasons that most of you mentioned. Then I was enlightened to the truth of God. I'm trully sorry that some of you haven't been yet.

 

[Famine]

FAmine, your absolute refusual to even ponder the concept of a being greater then yourself blinds you to even the most remote possibilities of Devine wisdom.

There you go again. I KNOW that there are beings greater than myself in the universe.

Your absolute refusal to answer even basic questions which could contradict your faith just make you look like you're sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "Lalalalala! I'm not listening!". But it's nothing we haven't seen before from Creationists in this thread and many others like it.

I ask you again:

How would Luke tell you how a television works? How would a Sony engineer tell you how a television works?

Which version would you believe? Why?

Everyone says I'm making it harder and more complex. Devine Creation is MUCH more simple then all the ooze, bangs and evolution could ever be.

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" - Do not needlessly multiply entities.

You guys have faith to believe that a bunch of people that are dead or that you'll probably never meet have given you good info. While I believe a document, written two thousand years ago, inspired by God and written by men.

Who are dead and you'll probably never meet... Oh, wait...

I really got a kick out of someone mentioning the dinosaurs. He didn't mention elephants in the garden either, but we have elephants now don't we?

We had elephants then too. But no-one in the Middle East had seen one since they live in Africa and eastern Asia. They didn't know what they were. Which makes you wonder - if the Bible was written by men inspired by God (through the Holy Ghost), and God created all life on Earth, why did God/Holy Ghost not know about elephants to instruct the men to write about it?

There is more then one type of logic. What really scares me about you guys is that you only have faith in what you can see. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist.

Whereas on the other hand, if you don't understand it, it doesn't exist.

Bottom Line: Evolutionist want to believe they came from themselves by accident. Creationist want to believe that they came from God with a plan.

Actually, you've stumbled on the fundamental difference, but you got the wrong one. Creationists want to believe. "Evolutionists" have little desire to believe in things, instead preferring to work things out through experimental processes and observation. Belief does not enter into it.

 

[code_kev]

Creationism is based on quackery, pretty much everyone knows that. Well apart from fundies, but they don't count anyway.

Can a fundie please explain to me why carbon dating doesn't match their theories, why evolutionary patterns can be traced back in the time lines underground, and they all MATCH? Oh and I want you to back up your findings using an unbiased expert in the field, no fundie "scientist". Fundie scientists, what a joke. I am a fairly rational person, and common sense tells me that Creationism just doesn't seem viable, what-so-ever. In fact, to say Evolution doesn't happen is denying the existance of different races of human.

Yes, I'm harsh, but it IS an opinions forum.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Creationism is based on quackery, pretty much everyone knows that. Well apart from fundies, but they don't count anyway.

Can a fundie please explain to me why carbon dating doesn't match their theories, why evolutionary patterns can be traced back in the time lines underground, and they all MATCH? Oh and I want you to back up your findings using an unbiased expert in the field, no fundie "scientist". Fundie scientists, what a joke. I am a fairly rational person, and common sense tells me that Creationism just doesn't seem viable, what-so-ever. In fact, to say Evolution doesn't happen is denying the existance of different races of human.

Yes, I'm harsh, but it IS an opinions forum.

Carbon dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts up to about 50,000 years old. It doesn't necessarily invalidate creation theories.

 

[Touring Mars]

You guys have faith to believe that a bunch of people that are dead or that you'll probably never meet have given you good info. While I believe a document, written two thousand years ago, inspired by God and written by men.

This is not entirely true... Scientific publications, including those on the subject of evolutionary biology, are not stand-alone bits of work... rather they are peer-reviewed, packed with references to relevant and similarly corroborated work, and form a solid basis with which science can progress...

As for the point that this work is all done by little men in white coats that we will never know or meet, that's not true either. The scientific community is very well inter-connected and it's not difficult to contact these people at all... infact, if you go to http://nobelprize.org, and look at these winners,... Chemistry - 2002 John B. Fenn, Koichi Tanaka, Kurt Wüthrich; 2001 William S. Knowles, Ryoji Noyori, K. Barry Sharpless; 1998 Walter Kohn, John Pople; 1996 Robert F. Curl Jr., Sir Harold Kroto, Richard E. Smalley;1962 Max F. Perutz, John C. Kendrew and in Medicine - 1997 Stanley B. Prusiner... My old boss worked for Prusiner, my boss before him worked for a student of Pople's. My old boss also knew Max Perutz and knows Kurt Wuthrich and Barry Sharpless. I personally have met Kroto at a conference I helped organise and participate in, and I have also met Prusiner in the USA last summer... in other words, we scientists do know each other, and no, they're not making it all up... (and no, neither am I)

 

[code_kev]

Carbon dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts up to about 50,000 years old. It doesn't necessarily invalidate creation theories.

Ah excuse me...


"Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age."


I meant radiometric lol.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Wrong.

Then explain instead of just giving a one word response.

Ah excuse me...


"Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age."


I meant radiometric lol.

That's what I figured...

See my edit, I was being abit hasty, I got my dating methods mixed

No problem.

 

[code_kev]

See my edit, I was being abit hasty, I got my dating methods mixed

 

[Swift]

There you go again. I KNOW that there are beings greater than myself in the universe.

Your absolute refusal to answer even basic questions which could contradict your faith just make you look like you're sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "Lalalalala! I'm not listening!". But it's nothing we haven't seen before from Creationists in this thread and many others like it.

I ask you again:

How would Luke tell you how a television works? How would a Sony engineer tell you how a television works?

Which version would you believe? Why?



"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" - Do not needlessly multiply entities.



Who are dead and you'll probably never meet... Oh, wait...



We had elephants then too. But no-one in the Middle East had seen one since they live in Africa and eastern Asia. They didn't know what they were. Which makes you wonder - if the Bible was written by men inspired by God (through the Holy Ghost), and God created all life on Earth, why did God/Holy Ghost not know about elephants to instruct the men to write about it?



Whereas on the other hand, if you don't understand it, it doesn't exist.



Actually, you've stumbled on the fundamental difference, but you got the wrong one. Creationists want to believe. "Evolutionists" have little desire to believe in things, instead preferring to work things out through experimental processes and observation. Belief does not enter into it.

Ok, fine...hmm...how would someone from the 1600's explain a TV? Magic! That's right, cause we didn't get it back then. I'm really trying to figure out how technology is relevent to anything. Television was made specifically by man. It has no bearing on his creation at all.

Why would God list each and every animal on the entire planet? So what. I seriously doubt you would deny the existance of a kangaroo and neither would I. But there's no specific mention of that animal in the bible. So I guess I should just deny that it exists. Come on.

Actually, if you look, I did listen and my posts changed as you explained your side of the story. But your posts haven't changed at all.

OK, you say that you believe in something greater then yourself but you have not faith in things unless you see them. That's a contradiction is it not? Or is it what they call agnostic?

 

[Touring Mars]

See my edit, I was being abit hasty, I got my dating methods mixed

What use are these techniques when the Earth is only 6000 years old? Don't you know anything Kev?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/AGEGRAPH.JPG

By the way, if you read this article (or anything else from this site) it's quite interesting and well-written... unfortunately it's PSEUDOSCIENCE...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What use are these techniques when the Earth is only 6000 years old? Don't you know anything Kev?

I've asked this once before, and I'll have to ask it again. 6,000 years on WHOSE CALENDER?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/AGEGRAPH.JPG

 

[Touring Mars]

I've asked this once before, and I'll have to ask it again. 6,000 years on WHOSE CALENDER?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/AGEGRAPH.JPG

This is quite a good point... the calendar was different, and so the extraordinary ages of characters in the bible may well not be literal in terms of what we now consider to be 'years'... but by just about any calendar ever made, the Earth is not that young, not by a long, long way... the young age of the Earth is just more Creationist nonsense... I think that little cartoon I attached above pretty much explains my opinion on that matter!

 

[Swift]

It's funny. So funny to me. People always say, "Creationists never listen. They just spout off and assume everything." Well here's the deal my friends. Why should I have to prove a devine creation through scientific methods? That's how you prove the evolutionist theory, wow, what a theory. So when I pull out scripture, it makes sense. But you all just dismiss it and say, "Where's the scientific evidence!" Sure, there are artificacts to prove biblical happenings places and people. Like nobody here is dumb enough to deny the existance of Jesus on this earth. But many of you do not believe he was God.

One thing I will say is that I can't stand the way Creationism is called nonsence, stupid and a child's fairytale. I haven't insult what you believe, so why would you insult what I believe?

I just realized why this argument is pointless and not going to end. You're asking me to prove my faith, that is not scientific, in scientific terms. Not going to happen. So, you can stop asking all the "What if Luke saw TV" questions now. Unless you're willing to listen to scripture and NOT scientifically analyze the mess out of it as I've listened to the evolutionist theory WITHOUT scripturalizing the mess out if it, there is zero point in continuing. You've made up your minds. That's fine.

I've always liked this saying, "Just because you don't believe the moon exists, doesn't stop it from existing"

 

[code_kev]

Swift, dinosaurs.

Faith is Faith, Faith is fine, however bollocks is bollocks. I'm sorry. I get the impression that creationist would believe the moon was a giant banana if the bible said it was.

No ones insulting you. If I am, sorry, but opinions are opinions and I shaln't cushion them for anyones sake.

I havn't made up MY mind, I see the evidence and I rationalise. If something proves me wrong, fine, I accept this, and change my mind.