Silly Creationist

[Statler Waldorf]

---

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.

---

---

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

---

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.

---

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.