|
creation vs. evolution
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Electronicmaji |
as per request of artic im starting a thread here in the political discussion forum I started this thread so um the other thread we were debating in wouldnt close down...ok basic intelligent debate...I post in a forum about main theology if you want to take a real serious debate route they have special debate rooms with special rules for intelligent debate..
now to adress your post ...
| quote: | Granted - which is good, because there's multitudes of evidence to back evolution up.
www.talkorigins.org should help explain what evolution is if you're interested. |
I know what evolution is I am not stupid :rolleyes:
| quote: | | Christ, not AiG again. |
Id prefer if you dont curse during this debate please...but I knew the minute I posted that you would probably dissaprove my source I have plenty of others I can use if needed.
| quote: | | Creationism isn't falsifiable. Creationism isn't testable. Creationism doesn't even have a hypothesis. Thus, creationism isn't science. Again, most creationists have got their degrees from so called 'degree mill' institutions. Most of them actually aren't scientists at all. The small amount that are have never actually published one paper in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Once again, 99% of biologists are evolutionists - it simply isn't possible to do any real research if you're a young earth creationists - nothing makes sense. |
well show me the proof that %99 of biologists being evolutionists and I contest to the fact it does make sense just not from a evolutional stand point. And for the part about creationism not having a hyphothesis ..it does several...YEC..OEC..many more...
| quote: | | That article not only grossly misrepresents evolution - but it's also trying to back away from the whole 'facts issue'. It's typical creationist rhetoric - "Now, these facts, this evidence, it really doesn't exist - what actually happens, is we interpret these fact differently". Sorry, but that's BS - plain and simple. The facts point to an old earth, there's no getting around that. When creationists come up with a scientific theory, get back to me. |
Again facts are all about interpretation and misinterpretation either way such facts as carbon dating have been dissaproved..do you know that carbon dating only works to about 6000 years ago and any difference in radiation caused by magnetic changes eathqaukes, natural disasters etc... change the timing?
| quote: |
At best that's ill-informed, and at worst it's a blatant and unashamed lie. There are very few scientists who are also creationists - and actually have any relevant qualifications in the field. creationism isn't science - it's an obscure religious belief that isn't backed up by the facts. |
what is not science is evolution...for something to be science it has to be able to be observed and we have never observed something evolve...we have observed things being created thought....
ok Ill back up some of this with sources as you asked later but right now im kind of busy so that all I could write up for now...eagerly waiting your response.. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| This is quite possibly the worst ID thread ever. I couldn't even understand half of what this guy's talking about. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
This is quite possibly the worst ID thread ever. I couldn't even understand half of what this guy's talking about. |
Tell me bout it mate, never seen such a blatent case of fallacy ave ya?! |
|
|
| FuzzyGreen |
| I believe evolution was created. |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Tell me bout it mate, never seen such a blatent case of fallacy ave ya?! |
Awe! HUGS ALL AROUND!
(seriously- what was he talking about?) |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
artic, we will kill you :D |
Haha, I've unleashed him on you. :p
Actually, to be perfectly honest, I thought that MisterOpus could do all my work for me, but alas, he's offline at the moment. :(
I participated in that thread. ;)
Now for some creationist bashing - the sport of kings. |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Haha, I've unleashed him on you. :p
Actually, to be perfectly honest, I thought tat MisterOpus could do all my work for me, but alas, he's offline at the moment. :(
I participated in that thread. ;)
Now for some creationist bashing - the sport of kings. |
Eh- Whatever you write- change some adjectives and verbs and throw my name at the end of it for me. tks |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Electronicmaji
as per request of artic im starting a thread here in the political discussion forum I started this thread so um the other thread we were debating in wouldnt close down...ok basic intelligent debate...I post in a forum about main theology if you want to take a real serious debate route they have special debate rooms with special rules for intelligent debate.. |
I assure you, we're quite capable of having an intelligent debate here, more than you seem to realize.
| quote: | | Id prefer if you dont curse during this debate please...but I knew the minute I posted that you would probably dissaprove my source I have plenty of others I can use if needed. |
Maybe because your source attempts to circumnavigate the issue and equalize biblical verses with hard evidence?
| quote: | | well show me the proof that %99 of biologists being evolutionists and I contest to the fact it does make sense just not from a evolutional stand point. And for the part about creationism not having a hyphothesis ..it does several...YEC..OEC..many more... |
Maybe the fact that there hasn't been a serious paper on creationism written in the last 50 years is proof enough? I haven't found any percentages in a quick google search, except that 45% of the americans still believe in creationism. That figure should be cut at least ten fold if we consider scientists only and again if we narrow ourselves to biologists. Now considering that the US scientific population hardly makes more than 10% of the global population, as well as that creationism is not an issue in any country with a reasonable amount of scientists except the US, we can easily conclude that your percentages are way more mistaken than arctic's.
| quote: | | Again facts are all about interpretation and misinterpretation either way such facts as carbon dating have been dissaproved..do you know that carbon dating only works to about 6000 years ago and any difference in radiation caused by magnetic changes eathqaukes, natural disasters etc... change the timing? |
Yes, and you're clearly the one who's misinterpreting the facts. Carbon 14 has a half-life of 6000 years, meaning that 1/2 of it will decay in 6000 years. But if you go back in time for 6000 more years, 1/2 of that 1/2 will decay, and you'll have only 1/4 of carbon left. So you're totally missed the notion of half life. It can be used indefinitely. Natural disasters, earthquakes, and magnetic changes do not interact with half life timing. The only thing that interacts is exposure to high energy particles. Do you even know how carbon dating works? High energy particles, mainly cosmic rays, create C14 in the upper portions of the atmosphere, which then spreads evenly through it. When living beings inhale C14, it gets stored in their organisms. Once they stop breathing, C14 stops accumulating and starts decaying. Every 6000 years, the amount of C14 in their bodies is decreased by 1/2.
| quote: | | what is not science is evolution...for something to be science it has to be able to be observed and we have never observed something evolve...we have observed things being created thought.... |
Actually, we have observed several cases of evolution. Nylon eating bacteria, darkened moths in english industrial cities, worms populations who became unable to interbreed after a short but controlled separation.
On the other hand, I'd really like you to say what we have seen has been created out of nothing by some sort of a divine intervention. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
I participated in that thread. ;) |
yeah i know, it was aimed to the starter of this thread =) |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
yeah i know, it was aimed to the starter of this thread =) |
Chances of him actaually bothering to read it - one in a million.
| quote: | Originally posted by Electronicmaji
as per request of artic im starting a thread here in the political discussion forum I started this thread so um the other thread we were debating in wouldnt close down...ok basic intelligent debate...I post in a forum about main theology if you want to take a real serious debate route they have special debate rooms with special rules for intelligent debate.. |
I like coherence. Do you like coherence?
| quote: | | now to adress your post ... |
This will be good. :rolleyes:
| quote: | | I know what evolution is I am not stupid :rolleyes: |
Debatable.
| quote: | | Id prefer if you dont curse during this debate please...but I knew the minute I posted that you would probably dissaprove my source I have plenty of others I can use if needed. |
JESUS H. ING CHRIST - how's that? :p
Good to hear that you've got some sources - how about actually presenting them instead of merely stating that you have them?
| quote: | | well show me the proof that %99 of biologists being evolutionists and I contest to the fact it does make sense just not from a evolutional stand point. And for the part about creationism not having a hyphothesis ..it does several...YEC..OEC..many more... |
You were the one who claimed that most respected, elder scientists were creationists - the burden of proof is upon you. Back up what you said.
Oh yes, you might also like to try and make sense now and then - that often helps.
Creationists don't have a testable & falsifiable theory - again, they simply don't have one, period. Please link me to a creationist site where they present a scientific theory that can be tested and falsified.
| quote: | | Again facts are all about interpretation and misinterpretation either way such facts as carbon dating have been dissaproved..do you know that carbon dating only works to about 6000 years ago and any difference in radiation caused by magnetic changes eathqaukes, natural disasters etc... change the timing? |
Bzzzzzzt. Wrong. Facts are facts. In this case - the facts point to evolution.
Here's an example of these facts that (according to you at least) apparently are up for interpretation - leading one to believe that creationism is true.
Yep! Looks like it supports YEC 100%.
As for the carbon dating argument, read the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay...rbon.html#noway
http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/gl...ef_carbon14.htm
| quote: | | what is not science is evolution...for something to be science it has to be able to be observed and we have never observed something evolve...we have observed things being created thought.... |
Evolution is science - whether you like it or not: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
We have empirical evidence (the fossil record and so on) of evolution occurring.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
| quote: | | ok Ill back up some of this with sources as you asked later but right now im kind of busy so that all I could write up for now...eagerly waiting your response.. |
"The case of the disappearing sources."
Ugh, coherence -1. Sorry for the ad hominems :p - but this twit has been spamming and derailing threads in chillout all day. :whip: Now, where on earth are occ & MisterOpus? |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
JESUS H. ING CHRIST - how's that? :p
|
I've always wondered what the "H" Stood for? Hernandez?
Insight Please- tks
:conf: |
|
|
|
|
