Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
lol - I assumed neither of us would drop it even when I wrote that.
To your #1 response: Again I'm curious what your definition of 'the truth' is? And what evidence you have of evolutionists suppressing it?
Even if you find the 'proof' to be unsatisfactory, it is still more substantial than no proof. As has been stated many times before, the Bible cannot be used as legitimate 'proof' of creation.
To your #2 response: Are we going to get into another debate about "what is Logic"?
Yes we agree, we are both a bit stubborn
1. Scripture says that creation itself attests to God's existence and work, unbelievers suppress this truth. So that would be the truth I am referring to.
2. Well that's just it though Cinjin, because the "proof" that evolutionists use to support their theory is structurally invalid, it can just as easily and often is used to support Creation because it fits both models. You really don't think that the Creation guys have a model that explains the fossil record? They do and it works just as well as the evolutionary model. Just out of curiosity, why can't the Bible be used as proof? If it really is inerrant as I believe it is, what better proof could you ask for?
(June 15, 2011 at 2:56 pm)Epimethean Wrote: "Speed dating Actually, speciation can occur very rapidly. Creation Scientists do not believe all life came from a single ancestor (Common Descent), so they do not require nearly as much time. In fact, even the 3.5 billion years hypothesized by evolutionists is not nearly enough time to derive all life on earth from a single ancestor via Natural Selection."
It ain't all mutation, my friend.
Explain what you mean please...
(June 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Only a fucking moron like Ham would make a comment like this:
Quote:A new exhibit at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum argues that natural selection — Darwin's explanation for how species develop new traits over time — can coexist with the creationist assertion that all living things were created by God just a few thousand years ago.
"We wanted to show people that creationists believe in natural selection," said Ken Ham, founder of the Christian ministry Answers in Genesis and frequent Darwin critic.
And where is the evidence for "all living things" having been created by their fuckwit god a few thousand years ago? Um, they have none. They insist that Evolution is wrong but have nothing but fairy tales to fall back on.
So you have read all 7,000+ articles on AIG's website in order to come to the conclusion that they have "no evidence"? Seems like a pretty bold claim to me.
[/quote]
Statler. I don't understand how you can give any credit to evolution deniers. Evolution is a fact, there is no evidence to say otherwise. Ken Ham is an idiot. Please find me a Phd Biologist who is a creationist. If the greatest minds of biology and related fields say evolution happened/happening, why should anyone take the word of a man like Ken Ham, Mick Huckabee or Palin?
Quote:A new exhibit at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum argues that natural selection — Darwin's explanation for how species develop new traits over time — can coexist with the creationist assertion [b]that all living things were created by God just a few thousand years ago.
What? Is this for real? The Chinese already had a written language 15000 years ago. I doubt they were born with the ability to write/read etc.
Come on Statler, actually show some evidence for creationism, as evolution has plenty of evidence.
(June 15, 2011 at 2:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: [quote='Epimethean' pid='145763' dateline='1308162185']
If the operators of the creatoon museum accept natural selection but believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, the process must be akin to speed dating.
Speed dating Actually, speciation can occur very rapidly. Creation Scientists do not believe all life came from a single ancestor (Common Descent), so they do not require nearly as much time. In fact, even the 3.5 billion years hypothesized by evolutionists is not nearly enough time to derive all life on earth from a single ancestor via Natural Selection.
Says who Statler? Show something to back your claims please.
Quote:Creation Scientists do not believe all life came from a single ancestor
Maybe because they have an agenda that doesn't conform to this. Science is the search of truth.
Creationism is for people who are scared of the truth, and struggle to believe that we have no point in this world.
As my Mormon friend says. 'There must be something else'(with a large hint of desperation in his voice) He can't accept this isn't a dress rehearsal. Unsurprisingly he too is a creationist.
What I want to know is how creationists explain away the dating methods that prove the earth is over 4 billion years old. It's true that they can be notoriously inaccurate, the margin of error is nowhere near enough to reconcile the difference. Of course, if the bible says so, then science must be wrong.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
If the world is onl, say 10k years old, we started at adam and eve etc, how the fuck did we get to 6 billion so quickly, i know irish have large families but c'mon.
June 15, 2011 at 7:12 pm (This post was last modified: June 15, 2011 at 7:45 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(June 15, 2011 at 3:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
That's because only a fucking fool would even consider reading AIGs same silly shit 7,000 times.
Your bible is not evidence of anything...aside from jesus-freaks' apparently inexhaustible capacity for self-delusion.
Let's have some scientific evidence that all life began 6,000 years ago in the middle east. Take your time.
Ahhh! Now we are getting somewhere, so you claim there is no evidence to support the creation position but then you openly admit that you will not read their publications. It sounds to me like you are being willfully ignorant on the matter. I condemn this sort of ignorance on both sides of the aisle.
(June 15, 2011 at 3:43 pm)5thHorseman Wrote:
Statler. I don't understand how you can give any credit to evolution deniers. Evolution is a fact, there is no evidence to say otherwise. Ken Ham is an idiot. Please find me a Phd Biologist who is a creationist. If the greatest minds of biology and related fields say evolution happened/happening, why should anyone take the word of a man like Ken Ham, Mick Huckabee or Palin?
Fair enough question, sure Evolution is certainly a fact, but it really depends on what you mean by “Evolution”. The word can mean numerous things, it can mean just any change over time, it can also mean a change in the expression or frequency of phenotypes in a population due to Natural Selection, and it can also mean the idea that all life shares a single common ancestor. Creationists completely agree the first two are facts. We have directly observed change over time and changes due to Natural Selection. However, the third option is certainly not a fact because it cannot be directly observed. You would have to infer that it happened by other evidence. I believe the evidence actually demonstrates that life cannot share a common ancestor.
Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin are not scientists; they are politicians, so that is a bit of a red herring to mention them. Ken Ham takes more of a directing role at AIG; he is not one of their research scientists, so that is also a bit of a red herring. Although I do not believe for a second he is an idiot, you may not agree with him but you have to admit he is well spoken and well educated.
Scientific fact is not based on consensus, so all the biologists in the world could believe something and it could still be completely wrong. Although there are plenty of well educated people who flat out deny the Common Descent aspects of Darwin’s theory.
I will see your Creation Ph.D. in Biology and raise you four
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
(June 15, 2011 at 3:53 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:
What I want to know is how creationists explain away the dating methods that prove the earth is over 4 billion years old. It's true that they can be notoriously inaccurate, the margin of error is nowhere near enough to reconcile the difference. Of course, if the bible says so, then science must be wrong.
Hey FNM,
Well that’s a bit of a different issue, but I can give you a cliff notes answer if you’d like. There are dozens and dozens of methods to infer a date for the Earth. The results range from 4.5 billion years to only 6,000 years and many dates in between. I believe the methods that yield dates in the billions can be explained away by the fact that they assume a global flood did not occur, and they also do not have any control. Those methods have never accurately dated a rock of known age, so why assume they can dates rocks accurately of unknown age? I think that the majority of dating methods actually yield dates on the “younger” end of the spectrum for the earth than the old. Evolutionists require long periods of time though, so you will never hear them admit that the earth could be younger than 4.5 billion years. It really is just a house of cards though.
(June 15, 2011 at 3:56 pm)5thHorseman Wrote:
If the world is onl, say 10k years old, we started at adam and eve etc, how the fuck did we get to 6 billion so quickly, i know irish have large families but c'mon.
Actually population dynamics provides pretty strong evidence supporting the Biblical account.
The current population growth rate is around 1.8% per annum, even if we reduce this to %0.5 in order to account for poorer medicine and calamities we still get eight people 4,500 years ago, which is exactly what scripture says we had after the global flood. So it really is not a problem for creationists.
To your #1 response: Again I'm curious what your definition of 'the truth' is? And what evidence you have of evolutionists suppressing it?
Even if you find the 'proof' to be unsatisfactory, it is still more substantial than no proof. As has been stated many times before, the Bible cannot be used as legitimate 'proof' of creation.
To your #2 response: Are we going to get into another debate about "what is Logic"?
1. Scripture says that creation itself attests to God's existence and work, unbelievers suppress this truth. So that would be the truth I am referring to.
2. Well that's just it though Cinjin, because the "proof" that evolutionists use to support their theory is structurally invalid, it can just as easily and often is used to support Creation because it fits both models. You really don't think that the Creation guys have a model that explains the fossil record? They do and it works just as well as the evolutionary model. Just out of curiosity, why can't the Bible be used as proof? If it really is inerrant as I believe it is, what better proof could you ask for?
See the problem here is Statler, that you scoff at the evidence provided by science and yet you defend the "evidence" provided by a book that even you have admitted requires faith. It's not fair to claim that the arguments of evolutionists is logically invalid when your own "evidence" first requires one to believe in a holy book. You ask why the Bible can't be used as proof and follow that up with the fact that you believe it is inerrant.
It seems to be blatant hypocrisy. "I don't think your evidence is logically valid - mine isn't either, but mine is still better because it came from the hand of men who claimed they spoke to god."
It seems ever so clearly biased to me.
It's like trying to prove that you had a threesome with two supermodels by using your personal Diary as evidence. It's just simply not valid.
(June 14, 2011 at 8:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Where do the creators of the Creation Museum state they do not believe Natural Selection occurs? Natural Selection in no way proves Common Descent.
Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, et al., have flatly stated that we don't evolve, we were created exactly like this. Stupidest people on the planet.
Kent Hovind is not affiliated with the Creation Museum. Ken Ham accepts that Natural Selection happens, he denies Common Descent. So I guess I will ask again, where do the founders of the Creation Museum (AIG) state they reject Natural Selection like it was asserted they did?
He suffers from the same disease as Ham. And I've seen video of Ham denying natural selection. I should have recorded it just to show you. You see, the problem is Ham will lie about anything, especially if it makes him look good to believers. So anything he says has to be viewed from the perspective of "how will this make me money".
Quote:There are dozens and dozens of methods to infer a date for the Earth. The results range from 4.5 billion years to only 6,000 years and many dates in between. I believe the methods that yield dates in the billions can be explained away by the fact that they assume a global flood did not occur, and they also do not have any control.
I believe your biblical flood can be explained away thus:
The water covered the tops of the highest mountains by 15 cubits (22feet). That's 22 feet taller than Everest baby.
The flood waters receded. To where exactly? Think about it
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
Einstein
When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down happy. They told me I didn't understand the assignment. I told them they didn't understand life.
June 15, 2011 at 8:11 pm (This post was last modified: June 15, 2011 at 8:12 pm by frankiej.)
(June 15, 2011 at 8:05 pm)BloodyHeretic Wrote:
Quote:There are dozens and dozens of methods to infer a date for the Earth. The results range from 4.5 billion years to only 6,000 years and many dates in between. I believe the methods that yield dates in the billions can be explained away by the fact that they assume a global flood did not occur, and they also do not have any control.
I believe your biblical flood can be explained away thus:
The water covered the tops of the highest mountains by 15 cubits (22feet). That's 22 feet taller than Everest baby.
The flood waters receded. To where exactly? Think about it
yup... a basic knowledge of the water cycle tells you that there is a set amount of water, so a flood like that would have never happened, otherwise the world would still be covered by water entirely
(June 15, 2011 at 8:05 pm)BloodyHeretic Wrote: The flood waters receded. To where exactly? Think about it
If he is capable of that, would he be arguing what he does? Think about it.
A fine point sir!
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
Einstein
When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down happy. They told me I didn't understand the assignment. I told them they didn't understand life.
![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png)
![[Image: bloodyheretic.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img849.imageshack.us%2Fimg849%2F8673%2Fbloodyheretic.png)
