Pierre the Frog Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing The Flood rearranging things, for the most simplistic explanation ^.^ (Because I'm too lazy to look up the whole thing ^_~) [1] Also, some modern animals wouldn't have existed yet. There's also a theory that [2] because the Earth was alot healthier then, creatures could adapt much faster. ^.^ 1: Acording to the bible. God created the beasts on the same day. 2: Aparrently you do belive in "survival of the fittest" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing Aah! But complete means Having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; entire. Which God is. ^_^ Besides, he thinks nothing like us. It's like a bug wondering why the mean ole human is squashing it (except in reverse ^_~) How could the bug understand? Ok, it was a rather cheap shot anyway IMO. Originally posted by Redwing Maybe they were less common. ^_^ Or [the zebras] lived in a place where they couldn't have gotten fossilized. Remember, according to the Creation model, a whole heckuva lotta stuff got fossilized during the Flood. The whole Flood hypothesis would, logically, mean that traces of a worldspanning flood could be found. Until such evidence turns up, it is a moot point. Besides: Your timespan is still off. Big time. Originally posted by Redwing But Genesis, when it was written, was taken as history at the time. The Bible was written by many different people over a very very large amount of time. ^_^ By the way, I agree with you. I believe evolution happens. I just believe that God created the template. Your logic is faulty: Empirical evidence points towards the "template" being single celled organisms (or rather even more primitive ones). God(s) can thus be eliminated from the equation. Originally posted by Redwing No, just responsible for the interpretation of the whole thing as literal ^.^ (i.e. Last Supper celebration bread really turns into bits of Jesus' body when you eat it, and Last Supper celebration wine really turns into Jesus' blood when you drink it!) We aren't really debating what Catholecism is responsible for, but I could name a few more important things on its roll of (dis)honour Originally posted by Redwing Or an enormous greenhouse layer collapsing to flood the entire planet. ^_^ Which would also create great conditions for fast fossilization. 1: There is no such thing as "fast fossilization" and 2: See above on the "Worldwide Flood" -hypothesis. Originally posted by Redwing That is the Darwinist theory. Just for completion, I'll mention that among creation scientists, Neanderthals are considered to be, simply, human; a race that developed and then ceased to exist. Well, Neanderthals are, genetically not human. Besides: I have a problem with your continued referrence to "creationists" as "creation scientists". "Creation Science" is an oxymoronic term. For a full explanation click http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00002A2D-B02B-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&pageNumber=1&catID=2 Originally posted by Redwing I don't believe Evolution started the world. I believe God did. Besides, Originally posted by Redwing Evolution is a theory. I happen to believe it happens, but there are scientists (nonreligious, too!) who happen to believe it doesn't exist. You can't fault them for that. Theories, after all, are just people's fantasies. 1: Source those scientists. 2: Theories are, as you have previously posted yourself, investigated hypothesises. In science an investigated hypothesis is elevated to theory if found consistent and least improbable, and reduced to fantasy if found inconsistent or less probable than other theories governing the same problem. Therefore theories are more than fantasy by far and away. For a full explanation go http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2. Originally posted by Redwing Maybe in a few hundred years, our descendants (I almost said 'ancestors' ) will have come up with a new and better theory to replace evolution. They will look back and say to their friends "Can you believe those silly people back in the twenty-first century? Believing in made-up things like evolution, and photons, and brainwaves." And they'll be as assured as us that their science is impeccable. And maybe, just maybe, in another hundred years they'll be laughed at too. Keep that in mind, when you're so furiously arguing. ^_^ You base the above on the false asumption that scientists think of theories as true and impeccable. I have already made a post dealing with that subject, but it is one that I will gladly repeat: In short: People who claim that science is truth should be hit hard and repeatedly with a blunt instrument (in a manner of speaking, of course, noone should hit anyone with anything over that). Science is reductionistic, and therefore can never be true. Scientific theories are continually being tested and refined in a process that will never end (save with the extinction of science (and of course I cannot be sure, since I only know the science of today)). This is why they can incorporate every veryfiable piece of knowledge, making science the ultimate way to describe the world about us (please note that I talk about "science" not the currently standing "scientific theories", which are merely the, at the moment, least improbable ones. P.S.: Before someone rolls out the "second law of thermodynamics" -point again, and makes a fool of himself, realise that it concerns itselves with isolated systems only, and that Terra is not an isolated system, which means that the point is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 19, 2002 Author Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Ok, it was a rather cheap shot anyway IMO. Cheap shot yes, but it does raise an interesting pont: In the bible, God is personified several places - Ezekiel (I think) sees God himself, God moves over the face of the waters, "God sees me", Adam and Eve hides from God and God has human traits. Why is God portrayed as a man, when he clearly can only exist as some supernatural "force"? Do you Christians believe in him as a person, or as a force of nature? If he did indeed create everything, he must have some sort of motive - whether or not we understand it is irrelevant. What will God do when mankind no longer exists, or has developed into a race we cannot even imagine? What role did we then play in God's grand scheme of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Frog Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 This is way of subject - if we're going to discuss why God can't exist or how he exists, create a new thread and I'll be glad to join in, but let it rest here! BTW. Are you skipping school today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Can I throw another log onto the fire of debate.... What we are discussing here is TRANSLATED texts that make up the current accepted version, King James, is believed to be the most accurately translated version. There are more than one version of the Bible, all coming from the same text, which one is more believable than others? To me that just makes me think that they can't even get the translation correct, but are willing to say that this version is the correct one. I assume that unless you can read Hebrew, then there is an English slant on the text, that due to the way the Bible was written and how English is structured, that it may not be giving the message as it was delivered............. Is the current version just the work of the richest monarch who decided to get it translated? As for being off-subject, I think there are a few of us here, trying to probe those that believe in Creation as to a few inconsistencies in their belief, as they do to science. I think both sides have raised valid points, that neither side of the arguement/discussion is bullet proof. It's just that the people discussing Evolution are spending a little more time structuring their response, finding some weaknesses, and asking those that believe in Creation to respond... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 19, 2002 Author Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Pierre the Frog This is way of subject - if we're going to discuss why God can't exist or how he exists, create a new thread and I'll be glad to join in, but let it rest here! BTW. Are you skipping school today? We're discussing God in this thread too, it's the same topic - disprove God and you disprove creationism. But I shall let it rest for the sake of peace. Nej, jeg havde to "fritimer" (hyg/undervis jer selv, ligesom jer) så jeg tog bare hjem for at læse lektier i stedet PS: nogle af dine indlæg er skrevet midt i en time edit - ahaaa.... jeg ser i også bare fik lov til at hygge jer selv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 The dating methods evolutionists and other sientists use to find out how old a fossil is are extremely inaccurate. They get anything from 100 billion years to 10 years. This I leared in sience class. Two words: Source it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing The Flood rearranging things, for the most simplistic explanation ^.^ (Because I'm too lazy to look up the whole thing ^_~) Also, some modern animals wouldn't have existed yet. There's also a theory that because the Earth was alot healthier then, creatures could adapt much faster. ^.^ There is no empirical evidence suggesting that. Originally posted by Redwing They died out. If everyone from Asia (bearing the physical characteristics of an Asian native) eventually intermarried so much that they ceased to exist the way we know "them" now, would we question why they existed in the frist place? Besides, God gave man free will. Man is running the show to some extent by man's choices. Se my above post on Neanthertals and realise that being different species means being incapable of interbreeding (not inbreeding, that's different). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 I didn't understand redwing he talks strange and is difficult to understand. I didn't read all of what he said but I'm just not concerned whith that. I think I heard at a confrence or somthin that human fossils have been found, even whith dinosaur fossils, in the same sediment layer, but you don't learn that in school. See above on sourcing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Clem not everything we know comes from school ... or church (which i take to be the creationist equivalent) That last part is a flame IMO. Everyone on this thread has to be very careful if we are to keep this open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider And the reason I asked about Fossil beds is because there was some found over in the Middle East where they found fossilized dinosaurs with other animals that were suppose to evolve after the time of dinosaurs. I would show you the picture if my dumb scanner was working. What animals are we talking about exactly? Were the theories adjusted? (the earliest appearence of many species is rutinely adjusted as more specimen are found from earlier periods). Were in the Middle East? Source it all, please. Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Also the reason I don't trust the dating methods is that we do not have anything which we know(Outside of dating methods) is 1 million years of age. Our dating methods could be like a pistol. Fine for small ranges, but it can be bad for long ranges. So some may be good for a few thousand years, but we have no way of showing that it can work over long amounts of time. The halflives of longlived radioactive isotopes are well documented. Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Also did you know that the layers(Jurrasic,ect.) in the earth have one interesting. All the layers are not there in all parts of the world. As in other words. Some areas have all, but Jurrasic. Others only have 6 of the layers missing. There is not a single place in the world that has all of them. And there are some places that the layers goes from (Top to bottom) oldest layer to youngest insted of youngest to oldest. If all geological layers were found in the same place in the correct order, it would be well and truely incredible. The geological layers are upside-down because of tectonic activity. The time at which the layers were made can be identified be combining the order of the layers, fossile records, polar turns ect. in a HUGE (understatement of the year) puzzle. A simpler version of this can be done with wooden poles. If you have two trees, both cut down, and you know when the first was cut down, but not when the second was, and they are found to have overlapping yearrings, you can figure out when the second lived and died. (this was one of the methods employed to figure out when the Mesa Verde dwellings were deserted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Frog Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Damnit ShadowTemplar you just took all the fun out of the discussion (Good Points BTW) Jeg synes dog at kræve documentation og samtidig ikke selv documentere alt dit er et billigt knep - men det behøver de andre ikke vide! Jaja Christian fri - time... mmmhh... jeg tror på dig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 19, 2002 Author Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Pierre the Frog Jaja Kristian fri - time... mmmhh... jeg tror på dig mmm hmmm? Det hedder også: Klassen underviser sig selv Og det er Christian med "ch" og det hele, tak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Pierre the Frog Jeg synes dog at kræve documentation og samtidig ikke selv documentere alt dit er et billigt knep - men det behøver de andre ikke vide! Synes jeg også, enkelte...kreasjonister eller hva nå enn man kaller det....krever bevis for evolusjon, de får bevisene, de sier at bevisene ikke er 100 prosent sikre, og sier derfor at det er feil og deres egen tankegang er riktig, uten å bevise det selv. Men nå får vi slutte å baksnakke resten av folket, and rather start to talk English again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 or we could all speak in what i can only assume is danish and no1 will understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 I never spoke danish! That was a very mean insult, Clem! j/k;) (but I actually didn't spoke danish) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 19, 2002 Author Share Posted November 19, 2002 Skide nordmænd.... BEWARE THE DANISH MAFIA!!!! muahahahahahah! The problem is, we have to disprove God, and they have to prove him. If creationists start to disprove science as a whole or evolution which belongs to science it starts to get "murky". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 I like the way shadow templar asks for sources. It is the only way to truly know. I cannot source it perfectly unfortunatly but it was told to me by a scientists, creation scientists that is. I have never heard an evolutin scientist though I do know evolutionists. You can not prove evolution, this is what evolutionists tell me, at least the ones who are willing to admit it. The only reason they believe in evolution is because they don't want to believe in creation. Do you ever ask an evolutionist to source his material? It's kinda like when you want to buy a car, they tell you all these technical things that you cant understand and those are supposed to prove stuff. It passes me why anyone would want to believe evolution. Just don't believe anything if you must. It's really that simple. I can't speek for other creationists hear but I don't mind if you "Prove" creation is false. I want the truth not to feel good about the bad things I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 proof is only a level of evidence that will make u believe in something there is enuff evidence for evolution to prove it to me you however will never have enuff evidence to believe in it ... cos u dont want to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckcsaber Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Yup. People try to hang on to what they have, w/evidence or w/out evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 I havnt read the new posts, but i'm going to quote a freind of mine. ** Creationism Evidence Against Evolution Since the creationists feel that evolution is an incorrect account of life on this planet, they have composed many arguments that attempt to disprove the theory of evolution; a complete coverage of all the arguments would be a daunting task that is beyond the scope of this article. Despite this fact, there are many arguments that provide a foundation for the creationist's position against the theory of evolution. One such argument attempts to deride the evolutionist's explanation of the process that supposedly led to the creation of life on our planet. The process describes life as developing out of basic chemicals that were present on the earth. The mechanism for the metamorphasis from molecules to life is not explained by evolutionary theory. The creationists see this lack of an explaination for the beginning of life as a major fault with evolutionary theory; the creationist theory does not have this problem given that at the heart of their theory they assert that god is the creator of all life. The reason this is such an important problem for evolutionists is that if there is no definite mechanism for the origins of life, then life must have occured because of chance circumstances. In his book Evolution From Space, Sir Fred Hoyle states: "Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. ... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect... higher intelligences... even to the limit of God... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident." Although Hoyle is not a creationist by any stretch of the imagination, he provides statistical evidence against evolution. This evidence is what the creationists agree with. In his book entitled Mathematics of Evolution Hoyle provides a statistical analysis of the evolutionary account of how life began. His findings point out how improbable the spontanious formation of life is. Another problem that creationists point out with the theory of evolution is the lack of adequate transitional fossils. The creationists claim that if evolutionary theory is correct then there would be billions of fossils from intermediate species fullfilling the stages of evolution. This claim comes from the fact that evolution is supposed to be a continuous and gradual change; this implies that there would be many intermediate species between, for example, humans and our ancient ancestors. Duane Gish points out a specific case where evolutionary ancestors appear to be vacant from the fossil record. He points out that "...there are many fossils of very complex creatures that are soft-bodied, believed to be, originally to be jellyfish and things like that. It has been shown by the German paleontologist Seilacher, as confirmed by Stephen Jay Gould, that those creatures are very, very different from these Cambrian animals, they cannot possibly have been the ancestors of these creatures." Gish concludes that since there are no evolutionary ancestors found for these creatures, they must have been created as they appear in fossils. Gish also adds that this is just one piece of empirical evidence against the theory of evolution that stems from an incomplete transitional fossil record. Evidence For Creationism For the creationist, the major source of evidence for their theory comes from the story of creation as told in the Bible. This story explains how god created the earth and all life that exists on it. The creation of life took about one day according to the Bible and no evolutionary processes took place. Since most creationists believe the Bible provides an accurate historical record, proving the Bible correct is not as important as showing that evolution is incorrect. This is reflected in the fact that a large portion of creationist literature focuses on disproving evolution rather than proving the claims of creationism. If the creationists theory is correct then empirical evidence should agree with what the theory claims. If the creationists theory is correct then the earth should be about 10,000 years old. There is a plenty of claims the creationists provide that agree with this prediction; here is sampling of some empirical evidence the creationists often use to forward their young earth claim: Magnetic Field Decay - The earth's magnetic field is declining. If this decline is extrapolated backwards then approximately 20,000 years ago the magnetic field would have been too strong for the earth to exist. Dust Deposit - Interstellar dust is building up on the earth at at a rate that implies that there should be about 16 feet of nickle rich dust covering the earth. Dissolved Metals - The rate at which many elements (like copper, gold, and lead) enter the oceans is very rapid when compared to the current concentration of these elements presently in the oceans. There is not a concentration of these elements that is representative of their rapid influx into the ocean, therefore the earth must be much younger that a million years. Rapid Cooling - The earth would have cooled to it's present temperature in a time period that is much less than billions of years. Young Comets - Comets within our solar system have a life span of about 10,000 years due to collisions with our sun and other planets. Since there are still comets in existence, our solar system and it's contents must be about 10,000 years old. If this evidence is valid then it also provides evidence against the theory of evolution. This is because evolution would require a longer period of time than 10,000 years in order to create the complex life that exists on the earth today. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources Gert Korthof summaries Fred Hoyle's viewpoints concerning the improbability of life occuring by chance on http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm. Duane Gish describes evidence against the theory of evolution, including a discussion about transitional fossils, in a transcript from a debate on http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish1.html In the online book found on http://www.creationscience.com/, members from the Center for Scientific Creation discuss evidence for a young planet earth. ** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 The halflives of longlived radioactive isotopes are well documented. First you you need to know how much you started with, you need to know that the rate of decay has been constant, and there can only so much C-14 to decay so it could not be used pass a certain date. This is great for small ranges, but over longer times it becomes less accurate. And also I think you quin-posted Shadow. Oh well I don't care. Oh no they are bringing out the Danish. HIDE! j/k Ich versteche Danish nicht. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 20, 2002 Author Share Posted November 20, 2002 ZDawg: Does your friend write articles, since you like to quote some of them? The link to the Saladin vs Gish discussion does all the work for us, as Gish's theories is picked neatly apart if you dare scroll lower down. I suggest you all read it, and especially read what Ken Saladin says in rebuttal at the bottom. He also explains why Hoyle's theory is merely an assumption. Regarding all your extrapolations: You cannot extrapolate backwards that way unless you have the necessary timeframe. If, for example, we found that the last 200 years, the magnetic field has been decaying, some people would assume that it has always been decaying that way, when in fact, it's just fluctuating with the current period being a decrease. If you do have the necessary timeframe, you have already proven the earth is way older than 10k years. Another example: If I carefully observed, over the course of 6 months, that all my garden plants withered and died, I could extrapolate backwards and say that God must have a hand in this, otherwise all plants would have withered a long time ago. This is paramount to understand before you begin toying with those theories - if you do not understand, notify me and I will explain in other ways (or Templar will jump to the rescue). Some things I'd like you creationists to understand: -Transitional fossiles have been found. -Evolution has been proven to occur, even in our short timespan as humans. -The chance that life could have spawned from amino acids or life was seeded from outer space in form those very same amino acids or backteria is not impossible, and very plausible. -Please leave the second law of Thermodynamics out of this, it'll do you no good. -You cannot simply take a fluctuating or non-steady variable and then extrapolate it backwards and assume it holds true. -It is pointless to question what happened before the Big Bang, or created it, since time or the laws of physics did not exist before then - it would be like questioning who created God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 20, 2002 Author Share Posted November 20, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider First you you need to know how much you started with, you need to know that the rate of decay has been constant, and there can only so much C-14 to decay so it could not be used pass a certain date. This is great for small ranges, but over longer times it becomes less accurate. You do know that halflife means the matter will continually become halved? It can never become 0. Needless though, there are other ways to prove the earth is way older - take a look at the stars: The light they shine is millions of years old, light travels at a speed, it is not instant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by Cjais could extrapolate backwards and say that God must have a hand in this, otherwise all plants would have withered a long time ago. There is what is know as a "seed" most plants/trees drop them in their life and once they die the "seeds" that fell to the ground now produce a new tree/plant.... an endless cycle, there is no great evolution involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.