Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

For all creationists:

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 8:58:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have questions.

How do you explain the fossils? From the Precambrian to the Cenozoic, there is a progression of fossils (which I think is evidence for evolution- why did the fossil record go pretty much according to evolution?).

Did each layer take a few hundred years to fossilize? And if all fossils are from the flood, then why are there different layers? Did the age of the dinosaurs take a decade? When did the dinosaurs go extinct? Why did god make dinosaurs, anyways?

How could god stuff that many layers of fossils into the earth naturally in a few thousand years? Why did god create tons of creatures, just to have them go extinct a few years later?

Why do the fossils go from simple animal that are no longer around to animals more and more like modern creatures? If creationism is correct, why do we see these primitive creatures progress rather than seeing everything in the fossil record come fully formed? Why did god create the "missing links" such as the tiktaalik rosae?

How long does it take for something to go extinct, anyway? Did god create the wooly mammoth and the megalodon and then condemn them to extinction a few years later? Or did all "primitive animals" go extinct right before human civilization? How long have the "modern" animals been around?

How long does it take for a fossil to be buried, or did god do it for them? For that matter, why did god create fossils of primitive animals anyway? To screw with our minds?

P.S. Just to clarify, I am a theistic evolutionist.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 10:41:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Question. Why does evolution disprove creationism?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 10:57:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 10:41:08 AM, phantom wrote:
Question. Why does evolution disprove creationism?

Seriously?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 11:01:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 10:57:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/8/2011 10:41:08 AM, phantom wrote:
Question. Why does evolution disprove creationism?

Seriously?
Yes.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 11:04:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 11:01:25 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/8/2011 10:57:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/8/2011 10:41:08 AM, phantom wrote:
Question. Why does evolution disprove creationism?

Seriously?
Yes.

We do know what we mean by the terms evolution and creationism don't we?

I am assuming that phantom is not talking about the birth of the universe, in context that would be retarded. But rather the origin and form of life? In which case... oh wait he is still being retarded.

Any help?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 11:07:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 11:04:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/8/2011 11:01:25 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/8/2011 10:57:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/8/2011 10:41:08 AM, phantom wrote:
Question. Why does evolution disprove creationism?

Seriously?
Yes.

We do know what we mean by the terms evolution and creationism don't we?

I am assuming that phantom is not talking about the birth of the universe, in context that would be retarded. But rather the origin and form of life? In which case... oh wait he is still being retarded.

Any help?
Evolution is also about creation. The question is, who lead the processes to create new species, or who even began it all (abiogenesis). Creationism would point toward God. Reconciling evolution and creationism is therefore possible.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 11:10:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 11:07:08 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/8/2011 11:04:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/8/2011 11:01:25 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/8/2011 10:57:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/8/2011 10:41:08 AM, phantom wrote:
Question. Why does evolution disprove creationism?

Seriously?
Yes.

We do know what we mean by the terms evolution and creationism don't we?

I am assuming that phantom is not talking about the birth of the universe, in context that would be retarded. But rather the origin and form of life? In which case... oh wait he is still being retarded.

Any help?
Evolution is also about creation. The question is, who lead the processes to create new species, or who even began it all (abiogenesis). Creationism would point toward God. Reconciling evolution and creationism is therefore possible.

Oh I see, so you have taken the common consensus of language and p!ssed on it. Fair enough.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 11:17:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 11:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Oh I see, so you have taken the common consensus of language and p!ssed on it. Fair enough.
There are hundreds of variations of English. One is not forced to accept any specific form of it. Moreover, words change. Idiot used to mean "not politically active." Lunatic used to refer to a person whose behavior changed accordingly to the shapes of the moon. Creationism used to refer to Biblical Creation. Now we have different usages of all these terms. Creationism can now correctly be used to refer to creation by a Creator. In that case, there's nothing wrong with reconciling with the general idea of evolution, Big Bang, or anything of that sort.

(And I'm laughing out loud, after writing 'lunatic' a cross symbol appeared randomly. Coincidence much!)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 11:30:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 10:41:08 AM, phantom wrote:
Question. Why does evolution disprove creationism?

From the context, it's obvious that the instigator is using 'creationism' to mean that God brought all lifeforms into existence at once roughly in their current state. That's obviously incompatible with evolutionary theory.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 11:30:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 10:57:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/8/2011 10:41:08 AM, phantom wrote:
Question. Why does evolution disprove creationism?

Seriously?

Why not? I believe evolution and the Bible are compatible.

Many Creationists accept the big bang theory to be true.

Note. I'm not saying whether I believe evolution or not.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 11:32:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 11:17:15 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/8/2011 11:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Oh I see, so you have taken the common consensus of language and p!ssed on it. Fair enough.
There are hundreds of variations of English. One is not forced to accept any specific form of it. Moreover, words change. Idiot used to mean "not politically active." Lunatic used to refer to a person whose behavior changed accordingly to the shapes of the moon. Creationism used to refer to Biblical Creation. Now we have different usages of all these terms. Creationism can now correctly be used to refer to creation by a Creator. In that case, there's nothing wrong with reconciling with the general idea of evolution, Big Bang, or anything of that sort.


Theistic evolution, is not regarded as a sub-category of Creationism, the latter is generally taken to mean that all modern forms of life were created 'instantly' by God, and have only been subject to small micro-evolutionary changes.

(And I'm laughing out loud, after writing 'lunatic' a cross symbol appeared randomly. Coincidence much!)

Hehe.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 11:33:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 11:30:43 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/8/2011 10:41:08 AM, phantom wrote:
Question. Why does evolution disprove creationism?

From the context, it's obvious that the instigator is using 'creationism' to mean that God brought all lifeforms into existence at once roughly in their current state. That's obviously incompatible with evolutionary theory.

He's using it as an argument for those who believe that, yes. But I'm just pointing out it's not contradictory to all creationists beliefs.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 11:41:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 8:52:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Opinion: Creationism and evolution are both correct and completely compatible as conceptual truth. However, the creation stories in many religious books about how life began are not compatible with evolution.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2011 1:49:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 8:52:13 PM, Tiel wrote:
Opinion: Creationism and evolution are both correct and completely compatible as conceptual truth. However, the creation stories in many religious books about how life began are not compatible with evolution.

this sums it up nicely
mamba24
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 11:11:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 8:52:13 PM, Tiel wrote:
Opinion: Creationism and evolution are both correct and completely compatible as conceptual truth. However, the creation stories in many religious books about how life began are not compatible with evolution.

-No they actually aren't. Any form of "creationism" shouldn't be an assumed truth. Evolution has evidence to support it. Creationism of any kind doesn't. (Creationism being all things on earth were created by evolution through a guided hand of a divine being) I'm guessing this is what you meant by creationism since you don't seem to advocate biblical creationism. Problem is, this position is no more valid than what the Christian fundamentalist's hold. Assuming that a god guided evolution doesn't make it true, and it's totally against the whole point of NATURAL selection. Your view would be what we call supernatural selection. There is no evidence that a god is needed in order for evolution to perform. In fact, all evidence points to one not needing to exist. It seems pretty odd that a god created all life on earth through this process, only to have 99% of them all currently extinct...When a variant of a particular species happens to have a slightly better chance of survival because it's a slightly different shade of color(or another small advantage) than it's fellow varieties(given the particular environment), thus reproduces more of it's kind, this doesn't suggest a god be necessary. It's just how nature works. The species, or varieties best suited for their environments, and whatever the reason, are able to evade predation more successfully than organisms of similar composition, will tend to propagate more offspring. If a variety from this parent stock happens to have a slightly better chance of survival, and propagates more of it's offspring, then this variety will become flourished within the specific area. This process goes on and on(varieties of varieties of varieties, etc..) until after many generations, some of the varieties no longer resemble their original parent stock, in that they are more different than similar, and thus we as humans decide to label them a different species, most of the time unknowingly. (In that we didn't get to observe this evolved process, and we don't know that they had evolved from a particular parent species) This is how natural selection works, it doesn't say that a god is needed, it doesn't suggest that a god is needed. It's a phenomenon that simply follows the laws of nature and the universe.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:18:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 11:11:01 AM, mamba24 wrote:
At 7/8/2011 8:52:13 PM, Tiel wrote:
Opinion: Creationism and evolution are both correct and completely compatible as conceptual truth. However, the creation stories in many religious books about how life began are not compatible with evolution.

-No they actually aren't. Any form of "creationism" shouldn't be an assumed truth. Evolution has evidence to support it. Creationism of any kind doesn't. (Creationism being all things on earth were created by evolution through a guided hand of a divine being) I'm guessing this is what you meant by creationism since you don't seem to advocate biblical creationism. Problem is, this position is no more valid than what the Christian fundamentalist's hold. Assuming that a god guided evolution doesn't make it true, and it's totally against the whole point of NATURAL selection. Your view would be what we call supernatural selection. There is no evidence that a god is needed in order for evolution to perform. In fact, all evidence points to one not needing to exist. It seems pretty odd that a god created all life on earth through this process, only to have 99% of them all currently extinct...When a variant of a particular species happens to have a slightly better chance of survival because it's a slightly different shade of color(or another small advantage) than it's fellow varieties(given the particular environment), thus reproduces more of it's kind, this doesn't suggest a god be necessary. It's just how nature works. The species, or varieties best suited for their environments, and whatever the reason, are able to evade predation more successfully than organisms of similar composition, will tend to propagate more offspring. If a variety from this parent stock happens to have a slightly better chance of survival, and propagates more of it's offspring, then this variety will become flourished within the specific area. This process goes on and on(varieties of varieties of varieties, etc..) until after many generations, some of the varieties no longer resemble their original parent stock, in that they are more different than similar, and thus we as humans decide to label them a different species, most of the time unknowingly. (In that we didn't get to observe this evolved process, and we don't know that they had evolved from a particular parent species) This is how natural selection works, it doesn't say that a god is needed, it doesn't suggest that a god is needed. It's a phenomenon that simply follows the laws of nature and the universe.

Just to add to this, saying that god works through nature, and therefore the natural mechanisms are evidence for god, is an utter copout. By this method, you could provide evidence that anything exists, as long as you tie it in with something.
mamba24
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 3:09:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:18:13 PM, tkubok wrote:: Just to add to this, saying that god works through nature, and therefore the natural mechanisms are evidence for god, is an utter copout. By this method, you could provide evidence that anything exists, as long as you tie it in with something.

-That's why saying they're compatible doesn't really solve anything. I could say evolution is compatible with my belief that a panda lives in the center of the earth and controls the whole process. But does that make it true? No, and it's no different than substituting a god in there. I believe things when there is evidence to back it up. There is no evidence that a god is necessary for evolution to function. There is no evidence that a god even exists. When I hear people say the two are compatible, they're just opening up holes for misunderstanding, distortion, and sometimes complete denial of what science and evolution are about.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 8:38:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 7:58:15 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There is a powerful amount of evidence for Creationism. Have you heard the scientific evidence supporting creationism?

Do you mean evidence for a young Earth?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 9:02:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 8:38:21 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:58:15 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There is a powerful amount of evidence for Creationism. Have you heard the scientific evidence supporting creationism?

Do you mean evidence for a young Earth?

No actually creation of the universe and creation of life.

To be clear -
I used to be a evolutionary thiest.
After reviewing the science I am much closer to believing in young earth than old earth. I only have doubts from a theological perspective.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 9:33:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 7:58:15 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There is a powerful amount of evidence for Creationism. Have you heard the scientific evidence supporting creationism?

Example?
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 10:31:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 9:02:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
To be clear -
I used to be a evolutionary thiest.
After reviewing the science I am much closer to believing in young earth than old earth. I only have doubts from a theological perspective.

First off, have you read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins? Secondly, how do you explain radiometric, heliosiesmic, and other evidence for an old earth? Thirdly, have you read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins?

Pretty much all of my pro evolution arguments are in his book (I'm not saying I just copied him, however). If you feel like I'm a bit too... passionate (something along those lines), it's cause I find it hard to believe someone who has looked at the science without bias can be pro creationism.

Finally, can you answer my questions? They not be the best argument but I feel they carry some potential.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 5:12:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 8:58:20 AM, seraine wrote:
I have questions.

How do you explain the fossils? From the Precambrian to the Cenozoic, there is a progression of fossils (which I think is evidence for evolution- why did the fossil record go pretty much according to evolution?).

Did each layer take a few hundred years to fossilize? And if all fossils are from the flood, then why are there different layers? Did the age of the dinosaurs take a decade? When did the dinosaurs go extinct? Why did god make dinosaurs, anyways?

How could god stuff that many layers of fossils into the earth naturally in a few thousand years? Why did god create tons of creatures, just to have them go extinct a few years later?

Why do the fossils go from simple animal that are no longer around to animals more and more like modern creatures? If creationism is correct, why do we see these primitive creatures progress rather than seeing everything in the fossil record come fully formed? Why did god create the "missing links" such as the tiktaalik rosae?

How long does it take for something to go extinct, anyway? Did god create the wooly mammoth and the megalodon and then condemn them to extinction a few years later? Or did all "primitive animals" go extinct right before human civilization? How long have the "modern" animals been around?

How long does it take for a fossil to be buried, or did god do it for them? For that matter, why did god create fossils of primitive animals anyway? To screw with our minds?

P.S. Just to clarify, I am a theistic evolutionist.

Fossils are found in layers created by the FLOOD (put some earth in a jar of water, shake, and watch it set into layers of chalk, sand, limestone, granite etc) and were fossilised VERY quickly by great pressure NOT time.

Very few, if any, KINDS of animals are completely extinct; just some older variations (species if you will) of existing kinds.

Being a theistic evolutionist is the absolute WORST of both worlds! Gods Word is true, to believe otherwise is to call Him a liar.. we are all gonna face Him and SOON.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:57:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 9:02:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/10/2011 8:38:21 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:58:15 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There is a powerful amount of evidence for Creationism. Have you heard the scientific evidence supporting creationism?

Do you mean evidence for a young Earth?

No actually creation of the universe and creation of life.

To be clear -
I used to be a evolutionary thiest.
After reviewing the science I am much closer to believing in young earth than old earth. I only have doubts from a theological perspective.

Did you publish your startling scientific reviews in a peer reviewed journal?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 7:00:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 5:12:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Fossils are found in layers created by the FLOOD (put some earth in a jar of water, shake, and watch it set into layers of chalk, sand, limestone, granite etc) and were fossilised VERY quickly by great pressure NOT time.


Conveniently the fossils sorted themselves in such a way that it only appears to support the evolutionary time line.

Very few, if any, KINDS of animals are completely extinct; just some older variations (species if you will) of existing kinds.


What is a 'kind'?

Being a theistic evolutionist is the absolute WORST of both worlds! Gods Word is true, to believe otherwise is to call Him a liar.. we are all gonna face Him and SOON.

So your choice is to reject modern science and be a Christian or to embrace modern science and being an atheist?

Didn't you admit in another thread that we can't be confident of what the bible actually said? Yet you are staking your tent here?

Boggles the mind.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 9:51:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 5:12:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Fossils are found in layers created by the FLOOD (put some earth in a jar of water, shake, and watch it set into layers of chalk, sand, limestone, granite etc) and were fossilised VERY quickly by great pressure NOT time.

Very few, if any, KINDS of animals are completely extinct; just some older variations (species if you will) of existing kinds.

Being a theistic evolutionist is the absolute WORST of both worlds! Gods Word is true, to believe otherwise is to call Him a liar.. we are all gonna face Him and SOON.

How convenient. Not a single mammal is found in the Devonian or any lower layer. God must have saved them until all the fish and the insects drowned (how the heck do fish drown in the flood anyways? Why is it that there is no mammals whatsoever in the Cambrian or the Devonian? Why is there literally no trilobites in the Permian, literally no dinosaurs in the Cretaceous?

Where were the dinosaurs in the bible anyways? It's incredibly convenient that the invertebrates then the amphibians then the reptiles then the mammals then the humans fossilized with NO exceptions. You don't seem humans in the Jurassic, you don't seem mammals in the Cambrian. That is incredibly convenient. And of course, this can't be evidence for evolution. God must have wanted it to seem like it was evolution or something. Maybe to test our faith?

I'm not exactly sure aout what you mean by kinds, but I will show you some extinct animals. Little to no extinctions? Look at all of the extinct ancestors of the whale[1]. And those are just the fossils we've discovered. Look at the Quaternary extinction[2]. Many of those animals are a vast change from today's.

Look at the timeline of human evolution. Most all of them are fossils, and most all of them are extinct[3]. And pretty much everything from the Jurassic is extinct.

I'm sorry if I'm being too aggressive.

[1] http://science.discovery.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 10:37:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 9:33:27 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:58:15 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There is a powerful amount of evidence for Creationism. Have you heard the scientific evidence supporting creationism?

Example?

I second this. Literally, EVERY SINGLE argument or evidence that has supported a young earth have failed. So please, present.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 10:41:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 6:57:37 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:02:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/10/2011 8:38:21 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:58:15 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There is a powerful amount of evidence for Creationism. Have you heard the scientific evidence supporting creationism?

Do you mean evidence for a young Earth?

No actually creation of the universe and creation of life.

To be clear -
I used to be a evolutionary thiest.
After reviewing the science I am much closer to believing in young earth than old earth. I only have doubts from a theological perspective.

Did you publish your startling scientific reviews in a peer reviewed journal?

They are not my views.
For a quick blurb here is Dawkins admitting intelligent design is quite possible for the seed generation of earth.

Additionally, Here is Carl Sagan explaining the 4th Spatial Dimension from a Higher Mathematical concept. It validates nearly all Supernatural Claims throughout History as quite possible.

We can discuss detail further, but if you have not spent time in Mathematical Theory our discussion will need to start there.
A biologist is woefully inept in determining the veracity of any supernatural claim. They only claim to understand current biological processes.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 10:44:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 10:37:33 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:33:27 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:58:15 PM, Gileandos wrote:
There is a powerful amount of evidence for Creationism. Have you heard the scientific evidence supporting creationism?

Example?

I second this. Literally, EVERY SINGLE argument or evidence that has supported a young earth have failed. So please, present.

I have found quite the opposite.
I must point out I do believe that few Athiests on this site are open minded enough to change to a correct viewpoint. I merely viewed the science and weighed the evidence.

We can start with the higher level of mathematics and discuss it first. If you have not delved into those mathematics, please view post above and we can start discussion in the direction you desire through the math.