Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Creation and Biblical flood not Evolution

ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:05:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is evolution actually provable? How much evidence has really been found?

Let's look at the real evidence of the Flood and Evolution!

=Flood=
There have been universal flood myths told by the majority of humans. A formerly wide spread of these myths can make one think that the actuality of the flood can be true. The evidence is there that at one time there was one nation and they experienced this event. To refute it is hardly necessary.
The geological evidences from the Biblical Flood are in agreement with geological facts seen in the field. Though that does not mean that those facts are what is interpreted. It seems very much like a larger scheme for the uniformity's cause.
The deposits fit well with the Genesis magnitude of a Great Flood but not so for naturalism in a uniform scheme.
Typical unbelievers say that flood legends are not absolute proof but they are far better evidence then any that relates man and apes from a common ancestor.
Lets remember that Carbon dating is far from accurate or fact. Scientist themselves can not know all about the variables involved in such test.
The sedimentary rock of the earth that contain fossils and is our supposed geologic history have been laid down by moving waters. This is so obvious that it seems illogical to calculate anything other. Sedimentary rock n are those have been deposited as sediments.
The fossil record of species have never been apart of evidence for evolution. Darwin himself showed that it is useless for testing between evolution and special creation. This argument still does apply.
In a Chicago conference the central question was whether micro evolution can explain the phenomena of macro evolution? The answer there was a resounding, NO.
Micro evolution is trivial changes within the same kind which is not no more than the offspring of the same kind. It is just variety within the same kind, so macro evolution is at best just a myth.
The palaeontologist finds is just too intermittent and is full of missing links. Though these missing links are not said to not be but just unfounded yet. The true situation here is that the fossil that should be found haven't. And in spite of the palaeontology evidence that exist, they still stick to their theory.
WHY? Despite the evidence of the contrary.
TheAsylum
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:37:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:05:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Is evolution actually provable? How much evidence has really been found?

Let's look at the real evidence of the Flood and Evolution!

=Flood=
There have been universal flood myths told by the majority of humans. A formerly wide spread of these myths can make one think that the actuality of the flood can be true. The evidence is there that at one time there was one nation and they experienced this event. To refute it is hardly necessary.
The geological evidences from the Biblical Flood are in agreement with geological facts seen in the field. Though that does not mean that those facts are what is interpreted. It seems very much like a larger scheme for the uniformity's cause.
The deposits fit well with the Genesis magnitude of a Great Flood but not so for naturalism in a uniform scheme.
Typical unbelievers say that flood legends are not absolute proof but they are far better evidence then any that relates man and apes from a common ancestor.
Lets remember that Carbon dating is far from accurate or fact. Scientist themselves can not know all about the variables involved in such test.
The sedimentary rock of the earth that contain fossils and is our supposed geologic history have been laid down by moving waters. This is so obvious that it seems illogical to calculate anything other. Sedimentary rock n are those have been deposited as sediments.
The fossil record of species have never been apart of evidence for evolution. Darwin himself showed that it is useless for testing between evolution and special creation. This argument still does apply.
In a Chicago conference the central question was whether micro evolution can explain the phenomena of macro evolution? The answer there was a resounding, NO.
Micro evolution is trivial changes within the same kind which is not no more than the offspring of the same kind. It is just variety within the same kind, so macro evolution is at best just a myth.
The palaeontologist finds is just too intermittent and is full of missing links. Though these missing links are not said to not be but just unfounded yet. The true situation here is that the fossil that should be found haven't. And in spite of the palaeontology evidence that exist, they still stick to their theory.
WHY? Despite the evidence of the contrary.


This was very interesting.

What are your thoughts on the pre-flood water canopy? Do you think the flood could have been a product of such an environment?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:40:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:05:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Is evolution actually provable? How much evidence has really been found?

Let's look at the real evidence of the Flood and Evolution!

=Flood=
There have been universal flood myths told by the majority of humans. A formerly wide spread of these myths can make one think that the actuality of the flood can be true. The evidence is there that at one time there was one nation and they experienced this event. To refute it is hardly necessary.
The geological evidences from the Biblical Flood are in agreement with geological facts seen in the field. Though that does not mean that those facts are what is interpreted. It seems very much like a larger scheme for the uniformity's cause.
The deposits fit well with the Genesis magnitude of a Great Flood but not so for naturalism in a uniform scheme.
Typical unbelievers say that flood legends are not absolute proof but they are far better evidence then any that relates man and apes from a common ancestor.
Lets remember that Carbon dating is far from accurate or fact. Scientist themselves can not know all about the variables involved in such test.
The sedimentary rock of the earth that contain fossils and is our supposed geologic history have been laid down by moving waters. This is so obvious that it seems illogical to calculate anything other. Sedimentary rock n are those have been deposited as sediments.
The fossil record of species have never been apart of evidence for evolution. Darwin himself showed that it is useless for testing between evolution and special creation. This argument still does apply.
In a Chicago conference the central question was whether micro evolution can explain the phenomena of macro evolution? The answer there was a resounding, NO.
Micro evolution is trivial changes within the same kind which is not no more than the offspring of the same kind. It is just variety within the same kind, so macro evolution is at best just a myth.
The palaeontologist finds is just too intermittent and is full of missing links. Though these missing links are not said to not be but just unfounded yet. The true situation here is that the fossil that should be found haven't. And in spite of the palaeontology evidence that exist, they still stick to their theory.
WHY? Despite the evidence of the contrary.

This is one of the most telling threads I've seen by a YEC.

Myths passed through generations originating from different sections of the world, all of which are thoroughly different save for water being a major source of destruction, is seen as nearly irrefutable evidence while geology, chemistry, paleontology, and biology are simply dismissed as unreliable.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 2:36:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:40:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:05:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Is evolution actually provable? How much evidence has really been found?

Let's look at the real evidence of the Flood and Evolution!

=Flood=
There have been universal flood myths told by the majority of humans. A formerly wide spread of these myths can make one think that the actuality of the flood can be true. The evidence is there that at one time there was one nation and they experienced this event. To refute it is hardly necessary.
The geological evidences from the Biblical Flood are in agreement with geological facts seen in the field. Though that does not mean that those facts are what is interpreted. It seems very much like a larger scheme for the uniformity's cause.
The deposits fit well with the Genesis magnitude of a Great Flood but not so for naturalism in a uniform scheme.
Typical unbelievers say that flood legends are not absolute proof but they are far better evidence then any that relates man and apes from a common ancestor.
Lets remember that Carbon dating is far from accurate or fact. Scientist themselves can not know all about the variables involved in such test.
The sedimentary rock of the earth that contain fossils and is our supposed geologic history have been laid down by moving waters. This is so obvious that it seems illogical to calculate anything other. Sedimentary rock n are those have been deposited as sediments.
The fossil record of species have never been apart of evidence for evolution. Darwin himself showed that it is useless for testing between evolution and special creation. This argument still does apply.
In a Chicago conference the central question was whether micro evolution can explain the phenomena of macro evolution? The answer there was a resounding, NO.
Micro evolution is trivial changes within the same kind which is not no more than the offspring of the same kind. It is just variety within the same kind, so macro evolution is at best just a myth.
The palaeontologist finds is just too intermittent and is full of missing links. Though these missing links are not said to not be but just unfounded yet. The true situation here is that the fossil that should be found haven't. And in spite of the palaeontology evidence that exist, they still stick to their theory.
WHY? Despite the evidence of the contrary.

This is one of the most telling threads I've seen by a YEC.

Myths passed through generations originating from different sections of the world, all of which are thoroughly different save for water being a major source of destruction, is seen as nearly irrefutable evidence while geology, chemistry, paleontology, and biology are simply dismissed as unreliable.


It curious to me, that there is not one group of people, that ever mention antoher type of human, relative or ancestor, that wasn't evolved yet. Or ever describe a time when humans weren't evolved yet.

You'd think some ancient population would have some recollection of being less evolved than we are now.. atleast the first generation of humans that could speak, or write..etc, etc.

It's all so unknown, and speculated so highly.

People add -ology to the end of everything and all of a sudden it's the most reliable. I'm certain all of the -ists involved, accept that unquestioned honor humbly...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 3:00:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This was very interesting.

What are your thoughts on the pre-flood water canopy? Do you think the flood could have been a product of such an environment?

Thanks. I do think there could have been a water canopy. I think that God used a natural tool to bring forth the flood.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 3:07:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is one of the most telling threads I've seen by a YEC.

Myths passed through generations originating from different sections of the world, all of which are thoroughly different save for water being a major source of destruction, is seen as nearly irrefutable evidence while geology, chemistry, palaeontology, and biology are simply dismissed as unreliable.

Myths come from some where and it is doubtful they do from a whim. You should look at those who refuse it as unreliable. When most scientist before 1960 viewed it as common knowledge that the earth had been flooded in the last 6000 years. Geologist have for 300 hundred years said that the earth has to many signs of a world wide flood to be untrue. It also is so easy to find the evidence you want when you have been trained from childhood to view it in a certain way. And maybe not the correct to begin with. It is just ignorant to ignore it.
TheAsylum
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 3:16:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 3:00:27 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
This was very interesting.

What are your thoughts on the pre-flood water canopy? Do you think the flood could have been a product of such an environment?

Thanks. I do think there could have been a water canopy. I think that God used a natural tool to bring forth the flood.


Absolutely. Now, i do not believe the canopy could have been the sole cause of the flood, but deffinately a contributor.

The Pre-flood Water Canopy theory answers quite a bit of questions, and eiminates most of evolutions claims, if it could be more throroughly investigated.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 3:38:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 3:16:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 3:00:27 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
This was very interesting.

What are your thoughts on the pre-flood water canopy? Do you think the flood could have been a product of such an environment?

Thanks. I do think there could have been a water canopy. I think that God used a natural tool to bring forth the flood.


Absolutely. Now, i do not believe the canopy could have been the sole cause of the flood, but definitely a contributor.

The Pre-flood Water Canopy theory answers quite a bit of questions, and eliminates most of evolutions claims, if it could be more thoroughly investigated.

True. They do not want to investigate it.
TheAsylum
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 3:51:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:05:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Is evolution actually provable? How much evidence has really been found?

Let's look at the real evidence of the Flood and Evolution!

=Flood=
There have been universal flood myths told by the majority of humans. A formerly wide spread of these myths can make one think that the actuality of the flood can be true. The evidence is there that at one time there was one nation and they experienced this event. To refute it is hardly necessary.
The geological evidences from the Biblical Flood are in agreement with geological facts seen in the field. Though that does not mean that those facts are what is interpreted. It seems very much like a larger scheme for the uniformity's cause.
The deposits fit well with the Genesis magnitude of a Great Flood but not so for naturalism in a uniform scheme.
Typical unbelievers say that flood legends are not absolute proof but they are far better evidence then any that relates man and apes from a common ancestor.
Lets remember that Carbon dating is far from accurate or fact. Scientist themselves can not know all about the variables involved in such test.
The sedimentary rock of the earth that contain fossils and is our supposed geologic history have been laid down by moving waters. This is so obvious that it seems illogical to calculate anything other. Sedimentary rock n are those have been deposited as sediments.
The fossil record of species have never been apart of evidence for evolution. Darwin himself showed that it is useless for testing between evolution and special creation. This argument still does apply.
In a Chicago conference the central question was whether micro evolution can explain the phenomena of macro evolution? The answer there was a resounding, NO.
Micro evolution is trivial changes within the same kind which is not no more than the offspring of the same kind. It is just variety within the same kind, so macro evolution is at best just a myth.
The palaeontologist finds is just too intermittent and is full of missing links. Though these missing links are not said to not be but just unfounded yet. The true situation here is that the fossil that should be found haven't. And in spite of the palaeontology evidence that exist, they still stick to their theory.
WHY? Despite the evidence of the contrary.

Would the pervasiveness of a flood theory link to a common experience that has occurred in a localized set (i.e. as separate incidents of flooding rather than one)?
Why can the myth itself be linked only to your supposed explanation?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 3:59:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 3:07:44 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
This is one of the most telling threads I've seen by a YEC.

Myths passed through generations originating from different sections of the world, all of which are thoroughly different save for water being a major source of destruction, is seen as nearly irrefutable evidence while geology, chemistry, palaeontology, and biology are simply dismissed as unreliable.

Myths come from some where and it is doubtful they do from a whim.

That's very interesting, to state that mythology can be depended upon. While it is true that mythology may serve an invaluable role in understanding the social values, beliefs, and so forth, as well as pertaining to other aspects of daily life and so forth, what makes you think that mythology can be used on the basis as scientific evidence for a theory?

And that itself is speculation, in its own right. If myths were to not come "from a whim", then were they formulated based on observation and strict reasoning?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 4:01:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 3:38:04 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/26/2012 3:16:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 3:00:27 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
This was very interesting.

What are your thoughts on the pre-flood water canopy? Do you think the flood could have been a product of such an environment?

Thanks. I do think there could have been a water canopy. I think that God used a natural tool to bring forth the flood.


Absolutely. Now, i do not believe the canopy could have been the sole cause of the flood, but definitely a contributor.

The Pre-flood Water Canopy theory answers quite a bit of questions, and eliminates most of evolutions claims, if it could be more thoroughly investigated.

True. They do not want to investigate it.

Can you explain how the theory would be investigated...even justified on the basis of a scientific experiment?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 4:03:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Time for Scotty to put up or shut up. http://www.debate.org...
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 4:09:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:05:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Is evolution actually provable?

Yes it is. It is also falsifiable. It is in fact the most falsifiable theory in science.

How much evidence has really been found?

Tons! http://www.talkorigins.org...

Let's look at the real evidence of the Flood and Evolution!

=Flood=
There have been universal flood myths told by the majority of humans. A formerly wide spread of these myths can make one think that the actuality of the flood can be true. The evidence is there that at one time there was one nation and they experienced this event. To refute it is hardly necessary.

LOL! The flood myth is impossible! It is just that, a myth! One would think that the stories wouldn't be so contradictory if they all shared a common event. http://www.talkorigins.org...

The geological evidences from the Biblical Flood are in agreement with geological facts seen in the field. Though that does not mean that those facts are what is interpreted. It seems very much like a larger scheme for the uniformity's cause.
The deposits fit well with the Genesis magnitude of a Great Flood but not so for naturalism in a uniform scheme.
Typical unbelievers say that flood legends are not absolute proof but they are far better evidence then any that relates man and apes from a common ancestor.
Lets remember that Carbon dating is far from accurate or fact. Scientist themselves can not know all about the variables involved in such test.
The sedimentary rock of the earth that contain fossils and is our supposed geologic history have been laid down by moving waters. This is so obvious that it seems illogical to calculate anything other. Sedimentary rock n are those have been deposited as sediments.
The fossil record of species have never been apart of evidence for evolution. Darwin himself showed that it is useless for testing between evolution and special creation. This argument still does apply.
In a Chicago conference the central question was whether micro evolution can explain the phenomena of macro evolution? The answer there was a resounding, NO.
Micro evolution is trivial changes within the same kind which is not no more than the offspring of the same kind. It is just variety within the same kind, so macro evolution is at best just a myth.
The palaeontologist finds is just too intermittent and is full of missing links. Though these missing links are not said to not be but just unfounded yet. The true situation here is that the fossil that should be found haven't. And in spite of the palaeontology evidence that exist, they still stick to their theory.
WHY? Despite the evidence of the contrary.

video to the right -->
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 4:27:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Scotty, you make me lawl.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 5:54:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 2:36:37 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:40:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:05:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Is evolution actually provable? How much evidence has really been found?

Let's look at the real evidence of the Flood and Evolution!

=Flood=
There have been universal flood myths told by the majority of humans. A formerly wide spread of these myths can make one think that the actuality of the flood can be true. The evidence is there that at one time there was one nation and they experienced this event. To refute it is hardly necessary.
The geological evidences from the Biblical Flood are in agreement with geological facts seen in the field. Though that does not mean that those facts are what is interpreted. It seems very much like a larger scheme for the uniformity's cause.
The deposits fit well with the Genesis magnitude of a Great Flood but not so for naturalism in a uniform scheme.
Typical unbelievers say that flood legends are not absolute proof but they are far better evidence then any that relates man and apes from a common ancestor.
Lets remember that Carbon dating is far from accurate or fact. Scientist themselves can not know all about the variables involved in such test.
The sedimentary rock of the earth that contain fossils and is our supposed geologic history have been laid down by moving waters. This is so obvious that it seems illogical to calculate anything other. Sedimentary rock n are those have been deposited as sediments.
The fossil record of species have never been apart of evidence for evolution. Darwin himself showed that it is useless for testing between evolution and special creation. This argument still does apply.
In a Chicago conference the central question was whether micro evolution can explain the phenomena of macro evolution? The answer there was a resounding, NO.
Micro evolution is trivial changes within the same kind which is not no more than the offspring of the same kind. It is just variety within the same kind, so macro evolution is at best just a myth.
The palaeontologist finds is just too intermittent and is full of missing links. Though these missing links are not said to not be but just unfounded yet. The true situation here is that the fossil that should be found haven't. And in spite of the palaeontology evidence that exist, they still stick to their theory.
WHY? Despite the evidence of the contrary.

This is one of the most telling threads I've seen by a YEC.

Myths passed through generations originating from different sections of the world, all of which are thoroughly different save for water being a major source of destruction, is seen as nearly irrefutable evidence while geology, chemistry, paleontology, and biology are simply dismissed as unreliable.


It curious to me, that there is not one group of people, that ever mention antoher type of human, relative or ancestor, that wasn't evolved yet. Or ever describe a time when humans weren't evolved yet.

You'd think some ancient population would have some recollection of being less evolved than we are now.. atleast the first generation of humans that could speak, or write..etc, etc.

It's all so unknown, and speculated so highly.

People add -ology to the end of everything and all of a sudden it's the most reliable. I'm certain all of the -ists involved, accept that unquestioned honor humbly...

Even more amusing. If we were to take your suggestion seriously, we'd find multitudes of people claiming to have found "less evolved" people. Ever hear of the noble savage?

Simply grabbing eye witness accounts of who is or is not "evolved" is ridiculous, inaccurate, and if taken seriously would legitimate racism and zenophobia. Even more ridiculous is to expect any given human to consider himself less evolved than he ought to be.

If humans evolved for another 100,000 years, they would probably be physiologically quite different from us.

Should they expect to find a human civilization that claims collectively they are less evolved now than they will be in the future?

Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for over 100,000 years. At what point during this time should they have reared their heads and said "hey now, we really aren't as evolved as we ought to be."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 6:49:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 3:38:04 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/26/2012 3:16:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 3:00:27 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
This was very interesting.

What are your thoughts on the pre-flood water canopy? Do you think the flood could have been a product of such an environment?

Thanks. I do think there could have been a water canopy. I think that God used a natural tool to bring forth the flood.


Absolutely. Now, i do not believe the canopy could have been the sole cause of the flood, but definitely a contributor.

The Pre-flood Water Canopy theory answers quite a bit of questions, and eliminates most of evolutions claims, if it could be more thoroughly investigated.

True. They do not want to investigate it.

I hesitate to even ask who "they" are.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:01:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 5:54:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/26/2012 2:36:37 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:40:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/26/2012 1:05:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Is evolution actually provable? How much evidence has really been found?

Let's look at the real evidence of the Flood and Evolution!

=Flood=
There have been universal flood myths told by the majority of humans. A formerly wide spread of these myths can make one think that the actuality of the flood can be true. The evidence is there that at one time there was one nation and they experienced this event. To refute it is hardly necessary.
The geological evidences from the Biblical Flood are in agreement with geological facts seen in the field. Though that does not mean that those facts are what is interpreted. It seems very much like a larger scheme for the uniformity's cause.
The deposits fit well with the Genesis magnitude of a Great Flood but not so for naturalism in a uniform scheme.
Typical unbelievers say that flood legends are not absolute proof but they are far better evidence then any that relates man and apes from a common ancestor.
Lets remember that Carbon dating is far from accurate or fact. Scientist themselves can not know all about the variables involved in such test.
The sedimentary rock of the earth that contain fossils and is our supposed geologic history have been laid down by moving waters. This is so obvious that it seems illogical to calculate anything other. Sedimentary rock n are those have been deposited as sediments.
The fossil record of species have never been apart of evidence for evolution. Darwin himself showed that it is useless for testing between evolution and special creation. This argument still does apply.
In a Chicago conference the central question was whether micro evolution can explain the phenomena of macro evolution? The answer there was a resounding, NO.
Micro evolution is trivial changes within the same kind which is not no more than the offspring of the same kind. It is just variety within the same kind, so macro evolution is at best just a myth.
The palaeontologist finds is just too intermittent and is full of missing links. Though these missing links are not said to not be but just unfounded yet. The true situation here is that the fossil that should be found haven't. And in spite of the palaeontology evidence that exist, they still stick to their theory.
WHY? Despite the evidence of the contrary.

This is one of the most telling threads I've seen by a YEC.

Myths passed through generations originating from different sections of the world, all of which are thoroughly different save for water being a major source of destruction, is seen as nearly irrefutable evidence while geology, chemistry, paleontology, and biology are simply dismissed as unreliable.


It curious to me, that there is not one group of people, that ever mention antoher type of human, relative or ancestor, that wasn't evolved yet. Or ever describe a time when humans weren't evolved yet.

You'd think some ancient population would have some recollection of being less evolved than we are now.. atleast the first generation of humans that could speak, or write..etc, etc.

It's all so unknown, and speculated so highly.

People add -ology to the end of everything and all of a sudden it's the most reliable. I'm certain all of the -ists involved, accept that unquestioned honor humbly...

Even more amusing. If we were to take your suggestion seriously, we'd find multitudes of people claiming to have found "less evolved" people. Ever hear of the noble savage?

Yawn. Whatever bro. All i know, is there should be something, from any point in history, if not explicitly referring to evolution, where men used or took advantage of a generation whose more animal then man.

Your whole point is irrelevant.

Simply grabbing eye witness accounts of who is or is not "evolved" is ridiculous, inaccurate, and if taken seriously would legitimate racism and zenophobia. Even more ridiculous is to expect any given human to consider himself less evolved than he ought to be.

...Lmao, riiiight. If there were such proofs you'd be posting as much of their testemonies as possible. The fact is, there are no "myths" about man being animal at one point, or any mention.

There is too much blank space between half monkey-man to a creature building things and using thought to stump generations thousands of years more advanced.

If humans evolved for another 100,000 years, they would probably be physiologically quite different from us.

oh, would they, probably, maybe.. somthing like that eh?

You don't know fool! And neither does anyone else.. But the "evidence" does not suggest man was much different then now; granted lived longer and grew taller in some circumstances.

Should they expect to find a human civilization that claims collectively they are less evolved now than they will be in the future?

No..
Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for over 100,000 years. At what point during this time should they have reared their heads and said "hey now, we really aren't as evolved as we ought to be."

oh 100,00 years huh? prove it.

They should have pointed it out as soon as they figured it out.. i don't know what point in the evolutionary tree that would have taken place, maybe sometime between having a massive forehead and living in cave to developing style and language??
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:30:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:01:42 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

It curious to me, that there is not one group of people, that ever mention antoher type of human, relative or ancestor, that wasn't evolved yet. Or ever describe a time when humans weren't evolved yet.

You'd think some ancient population would have some recollection of being less evolved than we are now.. atleast the first generation of humans that could speak, or write..etc, etc.

It's all so unknown, and speculated so highly.

People add -ology to the end of everything and all of a sudden it's the most reliable. I'm certain all of the -ists involved, accept that unquestioned honor humbly...

Even more amusing. If we were to take your suggestion seriously, we'd find multitudes of people claiming to have found "less evolved" people. Ever hear of the noble savage?

Yawn. Whatever bro. All i know, is there should be something, from any point in history, if not explicitly referring to evolution, where men used or took advantage of a generation whose more animal then man.

Your whole point is irrelevant.

Simply grabbing eye witness accounts of who is or is not "evolved" is ridiculous, inaccurate, and if taken seriously would legitimate racism and zenophobia. Even more ridiculous is to expect any given human to consider himself less evolved than he ought to be.

...Lmao, riiiight. If there were such proofs you'd be posting as much of their testemonies as possible. The fact is, there are no "myths" about man being animal at one point, or any mention.

There is too much blank space between half monkey-man to a creature building things and using thought to stump generations thousands of years more advanced.

If humans evolved for another 100,000 years, they would probably be physiologically quite different from us.

oh, would they, probably, maybe.. somthing like that eh?

You don't know fool! And neither does anyone else.. But the "evidence" does not suggest man was much different then now; granted lived longer and grew taller in some circumstances.

Should they expect to find a human civilization that claims collectively they are less evolved now than they will be in the future?

No..
Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for over 100,000 years. At what point during this time should they have reared their heads and said "hey now, we really aren't as evolved as we ought to be."

oh 100,00 years huh? prove it.

They should have pointed it out as soon as they figured it out.. i don't know what point in the evolutionary tree that would have taken place, maybe sometime between having a massive forehead and living in cave to developing style and language??

Paradox: Show me records of man claiming other men were less evolved and took advantage of them for that purpose.

Wnope: Sure, all over history, nearly every time man has conquered some tribe considered "uncivilized" the rationale almost always been divine or essentialist (which after Darwin translated to biological) basis for superiority.

Paradox: Alright, maybe that's exactly what I asked for, but I'm going to type *yawn*

LATER

Paradox: If there were such proofs you'd be posting as much of their testemonies as possible. The fact is, there are no "myths" about man being animal at one point, or any mention.

Wnope: Why should we expect any known culture to ever have a myth about man going from a bestial state to human? Before homo sapiens there were many other homonids which looked somewhat like us. The largest difference any given generation might see if, say, homo erectus spotting neanderthals and thinking they might be their ancestor.

If, after 100,000 years of evolution, humans were physiologically different-

Paradox: YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!

Wnope: If natural selection and phenotype generation, two things which have been observed in labs, occur among a population of hundreds of generations with minimal drift, then we will see physiological changes on average in the population.

You might as well argue germ theory is wrong.

Anyways, these advanced humans should they expect to find a human civilization that claims collectively they are less evolved now than they will be in the future?

Paradox: No.

Wnope: But you do expect cultures that existed tens of thousands of years after homo sapiens sapiens inception to believe that they came from a lesser form of themselves?

Paradox: They should have pointed it out as soon as they figured out.

Wnope: No one with any iota of scientific integrity has even suggested that we ought to find cultural narratives that involve a process which could not possibly have been viewed at the level of extremity you suggest. As pointed out earlier, the closest thing to "animal" humans would know of being evolved from would homo habilis.

If we found existing cultural narratives that do tell that story, I'd consider them completely irrelevant and not evidence in my favor but instead selection bias or chance.

Yet you expect me to dig such a thing up as proof for you?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 8:32:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 1:40:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
Myths passed through generations originating from different sections of the world, all of which are thoroughly different save for water being a major source of destruction, is seen as nearly irrefutable evidence while geology, chemistry, paleontology, and biology are simply dismissed as unreliable.

This.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 8:51:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A water canopy? Really?

Let me get this straight... ice rings around the planet (never mind that they wouldn't really be possible with a moon the size of Earth's) fell into the atmosphere and turned into rain, slowing themselves to terminal velocity for water without being vaporized by the conversion of kinetic energy, and then flooded the earth.

Ok...

Where did the water go?
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 9:00:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 8:51:18 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
A water canopy? Really?

Let me get this straight... ice rings around the planet (never mind that they wouldn't really be possible with a moon the size of Earth's) fell into the atmosphere and turned into rain, slowing themselves to terminal velocity for water without being vaporized by the conversion of kinetic energy, and then flooded the earth.

Ok...

Where did the water go?


Rings are one theory, but I thought the vapor canopy was more plausible. It explains quite a bit of things, including how dinosaurs could have survived being as large as they are.

But, as far as where the water went.. im sure you've heard of the polar ice caps? ever wonder what would happen if those melted?.. yep, global flood.

In case this one is coming next; all of the flood water, did not come from the canopy, but some did.

Imagine mega earthquakes, disturbing the springs in the ocean, causeing massive over flow, combined with a dramatic environmental change in temperature, cause the canopy to collapse and rain profusly for 40-days/nights.

once this setteled into place, given our earths axis and rotation, the water settled an froze, on the poles.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 2:11:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sad when people think their generation is the only generation. That generations before them that recorded many things are lost to the minds of today's generation.
TheAsylum
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 8:06:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 2:11:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Sad when people think their generation is the only generation. That generations before them that recorded many things are lost to the minds of today's generation.


Seriously. They really believe that man, was less intelegent in the past, then he is now? How can anyone think such a thing, when much of what was done by man in the past (Architecture; philosophy; technology) cannot be re-created today?

I suppose the saying: History repeats itself, means nothing to a group of people who run in circles, and never think to step outside and realize they are simply repeating a course many many people have previously travled.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 8:33:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are around 6 different Middle Eastern cultures that have a 'Great-Flood' story of their own. Now, make no mistake, I'm certain flood did happen, but it did not encompass the entire Earth.

http://www.deusdiapente.net...
turn down for h'what
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 8:36:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 8:33:36 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
There are around 6 different Middle Eastern cultures that have a 'Great-Flood' story of their own. Now, make no mistake, I'm certain flood did happen, but it did not encompass the entire Earth.

http://www.deusdiapente.net...

A world wide flood wipes out all homo sapiens except a family of seven, and only six cultures, all of which are geographically proximate, have a relevant myth?

It seems everyone outside the middle east has a strange tendency to forgot things that happened to an ancestor of every currently living human.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 8:56:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 9:00:22 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 8:51:18 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
A water canopy? Really?

Let me get this straight... ice rings around the planet (never mind that they wouldn't really be possible with a moon the size of Earth's) fell into the atmosphere and turned into rain, slowing themselves to terminal velocity for water without being vaporized by the conversion of kinetic energy, and then flooded the earth.

Ok...

Where did the water go?


Rings are one theory, but I thought the vapor canopy was more plausible. It explains quite a bit of things, including how dinosaurs could have survived being as large as they are.

But, as far as where the water went.. im sure you've heard of the polar ice caps? ever wonder what would happen if those melted?.. yep, global flood.

That's pretty interesting... Except that the volume of ice is greater than the volume of water that it displaces. So any floating icecaps don't actually count here. And the polar ice caps don't contain enough water to even come close to the volume required to flood the world as described in Genesis.

Also, what would cause the receding floodwaters to flow towards the poles of the planet?

In case this one is coming next; all of the flood water, did not come from the canopy, but some did.

Imagine mega earthquakes, disturbing the springs in the ocean, causeing massive over flow, combined with a dramatic environmental change in temperature, cause the canopy to collapse and rain profusly for 40-days/nights.

once this setteled into place, given our earths axis and rotation, the water settled an froze, on the poles.

Wow... so many problems. First, these mega earthquakes would release enough energy to boil off water, which, yes, could become rain. But the water system is closed - these earthquakes would not add water to the system. Second, this vapor canopy could not possibly have contained enough water that it would release at a slow enough rate to keep raining for that long, but also cause a rise in sea level to the tops of the mountains in the same time period.

And third, the earth's rotation would cause the water to flow towards the EQUATOR, not the poles.

I suggest you read this: http://www.talkorigins.org...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:17:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 8:56:59 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 6/26/2012 9:00:22 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 8:51:18 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
A water canopy? Really?

Let me get this straight... ice rings around the planet (never mind that they wouldn't really be possible with a moon the size of Earth's) fell into the atmosphere and turned into rain, slowing themselves to terminal velocity for water without being vaporized by the conversion of kinetic energy, and then flooded the earth.

Ok...

Where did the water go?


Rings are one theory, but I thought the vapor canopy was more plausible. It explains quite a bit of things, including how dinosaurs could have survived being as large as they are.

But, as far as where the water went.. im sure you've heard of the polar ice caps? ever wonder what would happen if those melted?.. yep, global flood.

That's pretty interesting... Except that the volume of ice is greater than the volume of water that it displaces. So any floating icecaps don't actually count here. And the polar ice caps don't contain enough water to even come close to the volume required to flood the world as described in Genesis.

Also, what would cause the receding floodwaters to flow towards the poles of the planet?

In case this one is coming next; all of the flood water, did not come from the canopy, but some did.

Imagine mega earthquakes, disturbing the springs in the ocean, causeing massive over flow, combined with a dramatic environmental change in temperature, cause the canopy to collapse and rain profusly for 40-days/nights.

once this setteled into place, given our earths axis and rotation, the water settled an froze, on the poles.

Wow... so many problems. First, these mega earthquakes would release enough energy to boil off water, which, yes, could become rain. But the water system is closed - these earthquakes would not add water to the system. Second, this vapor canopy could not possibly have contained enough water that it would release at a slow enough rate to keep raining for that long, but also cause a rise in sea level to the tops of the mountains in the same time period.

And third, the earth's rotation would cause the water to flow towards the EQUATOR, not the poles.

I suggest you read this: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Here is a workup on the tecktonic plate model of the global flood.
http://static.icr.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 1:13:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 10:17:42 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 8:56:59 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 6/26/2012 9:00:22 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 8:51:18 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
A water canopy? Really?

Let me get this straight... ice rings around the planet (never mind that they wouldn't really be possible with a moon the size of Earth's) fell into the atmosphere and turned into rain, slowing themselves to terminal velocity for water without being vaporized by the conversion of kinetic energy, and then flooded the earth.

Ok...

Where did the water go?


Rings are one theory, but I thought the vapor canopy was more plausible. It explains quite a bit of things, including how dinosaurs could have survived being as large as they are.

But, as far as where the water went.. im sure you've heard of the polar ice caps? ever wonder what would happen if those melted?.. yep, global flood.

That's pretty interesting... Except that the volume of ice is greater than the volume of water that it displaces. So any floating icecaps don't actually count here. And the polar ice caps don't contain enough water to even come close to the volume required to flood the world as described in Genesis.

Also, what would cause the receding floodwaters to flow towards the poles of the planet?

In case this one is coming next; all of the flood water, did not come from the canopy, but some did.

Imagine mega earthquakes, disturbing the springs in the ocean, causeing massive over flow, combined with a dramatic environmental change in temperature, cause the canopy to collapse and rain profusly for 40-days/nights.

once this setteled into place, given our earths axis and rotation, the water settled an froze, on the poles.

Wow... so many problems. First, these mega earthquakes would release enough energy to boil off water, which, yes, could become rain. But the water system is closed - these earthquakes would not add water to the system. Second, this vapor canopy could not possibly have contained enough water that it would release at a slow enough rate to keep raining for that long, but also cause a rise in sea level to the tops of the mountains in the same time period.

And third, the earth's rotation would cause the water to flow towards the EQUATOR, not the poles.

I suggest you read this: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Here is a workup on the tecktonic plate model of the global flood.
http://static.icr.org...

Institute for Creation Research? Really?

You do realize their theory rests on several scientific impossibilities, right? They claim magnetic resonance dissipated heat was able to account for change in sea temperatures and increased steam. The earth's magnetic field is thousands of times weaker than than an MRI machine, and an MRI doesn't flash-boil water in the human body.

The idea of lowered mantle viscosity followed by sudden ocean floor cooling simply cannot be explained under conventional physics. They just claim its possible. They ignore that runaway subduction cannot explain contintent-continent collisions. Even worse, their main claim seems to be that that "lighter mantle material" on the new ocean floor caused oceans to rise (driven, of course, by impossible amount of magnetic resonance bursting flood basalts) when a simple look at sea-floor sedimentation shows nowhere near the kind of uniform "newness" that we would expect if said subduction occurred at the time of the flood. Creationists would have to make up some sort of "super-sedimentation" theory where everything geologists know about sedimentation should be in fact speeded up by a factor of 1000x.