Creationists, may I ask you...

a reply to: Layaly

How much do you have?

I used to find entertainment in threads like this. Or any thread really, where people go back and forth with each other in a never ending battle of opinions.

Now? Well I don't know what.

And fish should never be pitted against each other!

What are you thinking?

Let's do, battle insects.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Can we do the Battle of giant Mutant insect one ?

How much do you want ?

God Dammit Loch Ness Monster, I ain’t gonna give you no tree fiddy.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
people go back and forth with each other in a never ending battle of opinions.

That sounds like what the emotionless Archonans do with humans 24/7.

They create 2 glove puppets; 1 named Lucifer, the other called Yahweh and then play Divide and Conquer all day with the mud monkey humans (quote from TV Supernatural series), all fighting it out in the 'sand pit'.

Syria anyone ? Lol

a reply to: Cypress

You have no clue.

a reply to: peter vlar

Could you be so kind as to take a deep breath, lessen the hostility, increase the civility and show me where exactly I made that comment about scientists and belief please? Or am I missing something?

Okay, I'm better now and it's just aggravation. I'm not getting hostile
and you know I respect you. Sometimes it's just not good to have a
race car in the red. That's all.
There must be a mix up somewhere because the quote isn't yours
and I was replying to the member directly above my avatar on page three
but didn't quote him. Maybe you thought I was replying to the OP
when I wasn't? But no that's not a quote from you .

So

"Scientists don't believe things" not your quote. But my response
whereby you retorted was in answer to another member. Not the OP.

See what happen was.

a reply to: peter vlar

I understand that insults dimish arguments into nothing good. However, there is no argument here with Murgatroid. He thinks science is a cult.

Also, I was asking what knowledge he has in fields of science. Not his official education level. He, of course, refused to awnser. Because science is a cult, and everything is made from magic.

It's hard to keep a "polite" attitude for positive and constructive arguments when you know people like Murgatroid won't listen to any of it because they are stuck in their religious ways.

There is a huge difference between disagreeing with the theory of evolution and thinking that science is a cult filled with morons who worship microscopes.

If you can't be bothered to read a couple science books because you think they are filled with devil lies, then you are DUMB.

That is not an attack. That is a fact.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I'm not desperate to minipulate your emotions. You just don't understand science. A concept that can be easily understoud by reading a book.

If you don't understand science but are constantly saying incorrect things about it, then you are dumb.

It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, religion, or any beliefs. Either you understand science or you don't. And you clearly don't.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

Evolution is based on tested observed data yes, but it does not factor in events where extreme radiation exposure may have blanketed a planet altering radiation dating. Extreme radiation exposure from STAR emitted radiation or radiation from fallout from celestial collisions, which can offset much of the current observed dating.

The reason we can radio-metrically date rocks is because the decaying molecules break down and are trapped inside the minerals. It won't change until the rock superheated allowing atoms to escape. This is also why you cannot date a rock such as a gneiss beyond the time frame the granite or diorite was metamorphosed. Additionally, if there was such a strong radiation burst that it would reset the decay ammounts, we would see a relative uniformity across all rocks which does not happen. We have varying stages of rocks that show date ranges from very early in the Earth's formation. We also have the moon and asteroid/comet material hat can be dated and corroborate the dates of formation of the early solar system. So your premise is very much false. As for radiation have an affect of the genome, well that is factored in as a way mutations occurs...

Its also observed that some of the Creation data associated with the Great religious books is related to ancient archaeological related information that signifies a strong Ancient Alien hypothesis...

The whole ancient aliens idea has very little evidence and what it does have is speculation towards a confirmation bias.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: TerryDon79

Read it.

Of course, there's no way to know if these paths will converge at some point in the future or are even completely distinct now. Another chance event on Daphne Major could cause the new finch lineage to begin interbreeding with the local population again. And blackcaps may never evolve differences beyond a slight change in wing and beak shape.

A layman may be fooled.

It'll take more than that to convince me two different species evolved from one.

This comment essentially sums up the whole thread. The reason is ignorance and that they value faith more than science. This is why after seeing a verified experiment that demonstrates textbook speciation this guy would blindly deny it without any explanation whatsoever as to which parts are wrong or why. He simply doesn't get the science, so denial is the easier road. This guy would need to explain why small changes cannot add up over time. No answer = blind denial.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: TerryDon79

Read it.

Of course, there's no way to know if these paths will converge at some point in the future or are even completely distinct now. Another chance event on Daphne Major could cause the new finch lineage to begin interbreeding with the local population again. And blackcaps may never evolve differences beyond a slight change in wing and beak shape.

A layman may be fooled.

It'll take more than that to convince me two different species evolved from one.

fortunately for science, your incredulity is irrelevant. somehow people keep missing this fact.

Omg another one of these? Really, I despise rudeness even anonymous rude people on trivial internet discussions but I just can't keep reading these titles day in day out, open one up for curiosity's sake, and find the one and only thing I've ever found...yet another person waving the evolution banner whose first sentence or two makes it loud and clear that he or she doesn't have even the minimal knowledge of the topic he or she is "firmly" behind much less the knowledge to have an accurate and fact based intelligent debate. Sorry to sound like a jerk, nobody deserves to be disrespected out of the blue and that isn't what my goal in writing this is. But c'mon, stop flooding the board with evolution creation arguments unless you are able to support a side diligently, you are offering SOME new point of view, or you are saying something with a tad more depth than a poorly disguised/clumsily worded jab at the character of those on the opposing side. For example, even evolutionary scientists admit their one biggest hurdle is the fact that indeed scientific theories must be observable and we have never ever once observed evolution. If anyone says otherwise even a reputable evolutionist can tell you they're full of it. And if someone tells you anything about strata, they're just repeating another fallacy in logic that seeing different bones in different levels is observation of it. So why post a fallacy, in fact probably the best known one AGAINST what you're opening a debate about and include some cushioned insult of the opponents, "I mean, what the heck is going on in their broken misfiring brain!?" It just brings about the same nightly shouting match that is eerily similar to what I'd expect to see from before...its...not "olds" but "n____" dot com type people and not ATSers whom til this became inescapable I always held to a much higher regard and noticed an exponentially higher caliper of person...

a reply to: piney

We know how old the earth really is
The caveman must of kept records

I can deal with young earth creationists being misinformed and brainwashed into believing something incorrect. What I do not appreciate is when you mock people. Do you know how we know the age of the Earth? It's from a science known as "geology." You see, there are these things on Earth known as "rocks," which can be studied. These "rocks" date back to long before cavemen.

I want to see a species change into a different species before my very eyes

Someone link him to a time-lapsed Youtube video that will show this.

What pisses me off is when people go around
And claim the earth is millions of years old

Billions, actually. How can you disagree with something you don't know anything about?

Latest data that shows the earth is at its hottest in all its history

Okay, that's pure BS. Fireball Earth was much hotter.

I believe that God created the universe' everything. I also believe in the theory of evolution. I'm under the impression that God is so smart that we do not comprehend. What makes you think God didn't do the whole big bang and set everything into motion? Also, it's kind of hard to give a simple answer if you tear apart our responses because "it's not good enough."

originally posted by: Gizawski
I believe that God created the universe' everything. I also believe in the theory of evolution. I'm under the impression that God is so smart that we do not comprehend. What makes you think God didn't do the whole big bang and set everything into motion? Also, it's kind of hard to give a simple answer if you tear apart our responses because "it's not good enough."

In other words, a deist view? God sets it all in motion and sits back. So long as there's no need for religions and worship, it's acceptable to me. Honestly, though - when taken in this context, "God" seems to just be a place-holder.

a reply to: scorpio84

just as "natural selection" seems to be a place holder to the creationist....

It's funny how it works...

(some)Creationists think that evolutionists are merely replacing their God with "natural selection" or what have you.....meanwhile
(some)Evolutionists think that creationists are merely replacing "natural selection" or what have you with God...

it's ridiculous when you really think about it...almost like little kids fighting over whether it was a big dog...or a large dog....doesn't matter does it guys? it's still a dog...doesn't matter how that dog got there...only matters what happens to it now...

A2D

Why do I choose The Bible over evolution. An honest question. Evolution deals with life that is already, for lack of knowing a better term, alive. I understand the curiousness that comes with wanting to know where we come from. Everything on this earth is connected. We are all made up of the same soup. We can connect as many dots as we would like, because everything came from the same place no matter how you look at it.

Bible: God said,"Let there be light." I can't imagine that it was not just some soft glow, but actually as a big bang.

Science: Big bang was the start of it all.

So, as you can see, it all started. This is what is hard for me to believe. A lifeless, conscienceless, universe gave rise to an organism that is actually aware of the universe itself. Not just that. I know we are at a very early stage in space exploration, but it also appears that life, that is aware of the universe, is something unique to this planet. I know people will cite UFO's, and other paranormal statistics to refute this, but for this discussion lets stick to mainstream material.

I thank you for you question, it is always wise to try and understand things that we are opposed to.

a reply to: scorpio84

Responding to the OP- as a "conservative Christian" I do believe in the genesis story of creation. I do believe in adaptation. But not evolution. I have a bachelors in chemistry. A masters in theology. I have never seen anything in my studies of science that would explain creation or definitely prove evolution.

From my perspective believing in evolution takes more faith than believing in the "flying spaghetti monster". Obviously, I believe in the God of the Bible and The Genesis account. I do not mind people poking fun at me for this. I have studied both theology and science and Genesis is the most logical from my perspective.

If you would like to argue that evolution is one potential theory... I certainly would not argue with you. I do not take that position. They are too many gaps in Evolution that cannot be explained. Maybe someday.

I am always open to new ideas and research. Everything I have studied and read over the years is proof of adaptation from my perspective. For example as you look at the human race you'll see many variations but they're all part of the same race. Adaptation has influenced many aspects of humanity but it has not evolved us into something new.

originally posted by: Gizawski
I believe that God created the universe' everything. I also believe in the theory of evolution. I'm under the impression that God is so smart that we do not comprehend. What makes you think God didn't do the whole big bang and set everything into motion? Also, it's kind of hard to give a simple answer if you tear apart our responses because "it's not good enough."

well, we do have serious standards for answers to serious questions. if you cant do it right, science will. because we actually care about answers that are verifiable and not just feel-good platitudes.

also, the theory of evolution supports theism about as much as a flotation device assists a floundering toddler. "im swimming!" sure you are, timmy. just dont take that vest off.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: scorpio84

just as "natural selection" seems to be a place holder to the creationist....

It's funny how it works...

With the exception, of course, being that natural selection can be observed today all throughout nature and has been repeatedly verified and confirmed, while god cannot be observed or verified in any way shape or form. It's funny how that works. Actually it's not, it's fascinating to learn about.

it's ridiculous when you really think about it...almost like little kids fighting over whether it was a big dog...or a large dog....doesn't matter does it guys? it's still a dog...doesn't matter how that dog got there...only matters what happens to it now...

No, it's not almost like that. One side has overwhelming evidence in its favor, while the other has pretty much nill. It's not like saying blue is better than red. Evolution is not opinion. Evolution debates don't exist. One side presents evidence. The other side denies it.

Besides, creationism (except in its literalist form) has nothing to do with evolution. It should be creationism vs abiogenesis, if anything. Evolution is confirmed. The grey area all lies with how the first lifeforms emerged. Evolution is compatible with creation, just not a literal interpretation of genesis.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
If you would like to argue that evolution is one potential theory... I certainly would not argue with you. I do not take that position. They are too many gaps in Evolution that cannot be explained. Maybe someday.

First, scientific theories are well substantiated explanations based on hard evidence and peer reviewed research. It's not just a theory in somebody's head.

Second, from the evidence I have seen in the fossil record, thousands of gaps have been filled. Could you be specific in which gaps you are referring to?

I am always open to new ideas and research. Everything I have studied and read over the years is proof of adaptation from my perspective. For example as you look at the human race you'll see many variations but they're all part of the same race. Adaptation has influenced many aspects of humanity but it has not evolved us into something new.

Actually the transition from ancient ape to modern humans is very well documented. People refer to missing links, but the term is a misnomer, because every fossil is a link between generations. Scientists have already found well over 20 species(missing links) in hominid evolution and that number will only rise as we find more in the future. Long term adaptation IS evolution, so if you see proof of that, then you see proof of evolution.