It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creationism is wrong and Evolution is right

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The Evolution and Big Bang theory has many gaps in it. Part of the big bang theory is that it reoccurs every 80-100 billion years, no one has seen it happen. Ever. There is a lot of questions about evolution. Like during the evoultion process, what came first: a digestive system, an appetite, or the food to eat? What came first: reproductive system, sexual urges, or a mate who was also equipped to reproduce and also had urges to do so? There are so many questions like this. The evolution theory is very much incomplete, and offers very little answers.
By now I'm sure you have to be thinking that there are many questions about God that are unanswered.... well of course... I openly express that my belief in God is my religion. But what about evoultionists? They put their beliefs in a theory that has never been proven right, against God, who has never been proven wrong, and yet they call mine a religion and can't see their own as a religion... We both put our faith into something, the difference is that my belief in God also offers experiencing the Love of God and knowing that someday you will get all the answers... and theirs... you never find out anything more, you become dirt until the next supposed big bang... I think it is an excuse to try and avoid accountability. Because if God existed, then you know that you have to answer to His rules. How silly. God still Loves you.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by Tanto]

[edit on 5-5-2006 by Tanto]




posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tanto
But what about evoultionists? They put their beliefs in a theory that has never been proven right, against God, who has never been proven wrong, and yet they call mine a religion and can't see their own as a reiligion...
[edit on 5-5-2006 by Tanto]


And conversely, we accept the scientific theory of ToE that has never been proven wrong, against god, who has never been proven right.

But I disagree with what you state anyway. Only christian fundamentalists find ToE and their faith mutually exclusive (of Xians that is). Most denominations have no problem accepting ToE and holding a christian faith.

How can ToE be a religion? It is a scientific theory, how can a person have two religions? I know many Xians who accept ToE. If you believe ToE is a religion, it will only belittle your faith, moreso than literal creationism already does. YEC creationism does more harm to christianity than ToE will ever do.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by melatonin]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
If you read the account of Genesis, there is no logical way you can come up with evolution or that the world is billions of years old, or that a big bang happens every 80-100 billion years. If you look at the history of evoultion, it has not been around as long as creation. And you also said that evolution has not been proven wrong... that is because it keeps changing all the time when it is proven wrong. The world used to be a few million years old, well that wasn't enough time for everything to happen so we'll make it a few billion years old. O, but we still can't explain everything, we'll say there was another ice age. And everything evolutionists said happened in that time frame was proven wrong so we'll say it's even older... So the answer to evolution's problems is either an ice age or say that the world is older than we thought... so no one saw anything happen.
Since you didn't answer any questions from my first post, here's some more...
Where did all the energy come from for the big bang? (Where did God come from? Again, I say mine is a religion.) How do we have all the higher elements? According to the big bang, there was only hydrogen and helium and you cannot fuse past iron... so how did we get the rest of the elements?
Are you scared of judgment? God does Love you, if only you would accept His Love...



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tanto
If you read the account of Genesis, there is no logical way you can come up with evolution or that the world is billions of years old, or that a big bang happens every 80-100 billion years. If you look at the history of evoultion, it has not been around as long as creation. And you also said that evolution has not been proven wrong... that is because it keeps changing all the time when it is proven wrong. The world used to be a few million years old, well that wasn't enough time for everything to happen so we'll make it a few billion years old. O, but we still can't explain everything, we'll say there was another ice age. And everything evolutionists said happened in that time frame was proven wrong so we'll say it's even older... So the answer to evolution's problems is either an ice age or say that the world is older than we thought... so no one saw anything happen.
Since you didn't answer any questions from my first post, here's some more...
Where did all the energy come from for the big bang? (Where did God come from? Again, I say mine is a religion.) How do we have all the higher elements? According to the big bang, there was only hydrogen and helium and you cannot fuse past iron... so how did we get the rest of the elements?
Are you scared of judgment? God does Love you, if only you would accept His Love...


ToE has not been falsified. It is a collection of hypotheses under the one model - the theory of evolution.

haha, scared of judgement. For what? Not conforming to a set of rules determined by a group of goat-herders? Are you of the 'must have faith to be good' ilk?

We don't have all the answers, but saying 'we don't know' is nothing to be ashamed of, much better than 'goddidit'.

Who cares about genesis, YEC is refuted. Are you scared to accept this? Is your faith so shaky that you cannot accept the evidence and have faith?

The evidence for ToE is out there, if only you would open your eyes to it. Your god won't hate you for using the brain he/she gave you.

Cosmological production of heavy elements


Like during the evoultion process, what came first: a digestive system, an appetite, or the food to eat? What came first: reproductive system, sexual urges, or a mate who was also equipped to reproduce and also had urges to do so? There are so many questions like this. The evolution theory is very much incomplete, and offers very little answers.


1. the food to eat would come first, then the digestive system. Appetite is just a motivation caused by the digestive system. Does a venus flytrap have an appetite?

2. the reproductive system would come first. Some organisms do not need a mate. Sexual urges are just another motivation due to biology.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by melatonin]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
These were your answers

"1. the food to eat would come first, then the digestive system. Appetite is just a motivation caused by the digestive system. Does a venus flytrap have an appetite?

2. the reproductive system would come first. Some organisms do not need a mate. Sexual urges are just another motivation due to biology."

Again do you have any proof at all? You said it was a theory, the definition of theory is: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. So again it is what you put your faith into. What about the theory of gravity or other theories? Well, you can test the theory of gravity, and retest it, and test it again. You can apply science and get results. Your theory... let me see anything beyond micro evolution, let me see an animal give birth to something outside of it's own kind... doesn't happen. Never has been seen, can't be tested, can't be explained, there is no proof, it is a religion...
You also said "The evidence for ToE is out there, if only you would open your eyes to it. Your god won't hate you for using the brain he/she gave you."
Give me your evidence for evoultion...
Another statement you said "Who cares about genesis, YEC is refuted. Are you scared to accept this? Is your faith so shaky that you cannot accept the evidence and have faith?"
You said my faith is shaky... I have a solid foundation of what I place my beliefs on... It's Jesus Christ. What do you place you beliefs on... something that changes constantly because it can't stand the test of time and scrutiny.
You are trying to say that animals can't do today what their ancestors did years ago, produce something outside of their own kind.... this would not be evolving but just the opposite.
And also supposedly we evolved from micro organisms and so on and so forth...
So let me make this real easy, I am going to put a frog into a blender, grind it up. Now how long before it turns back into a frog? This is easier than your theory of evolution because you already have everything you need in the blender, but guess what... it will not happen, it will not turn back into a frog.
I know that it is difficult but can you ledt me know what you place your foundation of beliefs on and what is your best evidence supporting your religion?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Another thing I didn't want to leave unanswered...
"Most denominations have no problem accepting ToE and holding a christian faith. "
Majority doesn't mean anything... The majority of people thought the earth was the center of our solar system, the majority thought the world was flat, the majority thought bigger objects fall faster than little objects....
Majority means nothing, and just because others compromise their faith is no reason at all for me to conform... This is something you do not want to be wrong about. I will stand behind the Bible 100% Someday I hope you too will experience the Love and Salvation that Jesus Christ is willing to give...



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
You are using the common notion of the word 'theory'...


In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

en.wikipedia.org...

As for evidence, there is too much for me to post here. Here is a good place for you to start...

29+ evidences for macroevolution

Read some books other than your bible. It will do you good.


let me see an animal give birth to something outside of it's own kind... doesn't happen. Never has been seen, can't be tested, can't be explained, there is no proof, it is a religion...


Yeah, it's a religion in which all its 'believers' refuse to accept it as religion, it has no supernatural diety, has no rituals, lays no moral code, only explains origin of species rather than ultimate reality, as a scientific theory is tentative and flexible unlike religions that are generally static and 'ultimate truth', etc etc.

An animal has never given birth to another species. You misunderstand ToE. It occurs at the population level. Anyway, what is a 'kind', what restricts evolution at this boundary?

Speciation has been observed. If you are prepared to wait 100,000 years, maybe we can demonstrate what you call 'macro-evolution' for you.

Have you even made the effort to watch the video that I linked? I suggest you do, then you might make some useful criticisms of ToE...

edit: and the majority of the world conform to some religious belief and creationism, there is no reason why I should. If you want to ignore the evidence and believe in a Loki-type deity, go ahead.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by melatonin]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Evolution defined means to adapt to ones enviroment,right?Im sure it does.Like many who do not believe in a supreme being or creator,ask who created God?The same ? can be applied to the very first and even most finite molecule or element.By what power has any physical substance been gained to have any reaction or form?Whether seen or unseen how did any existence come to be in the first place?In order to be,there must have been.What has been must always be.For nothing is derived from nothing and something derived from something.I cannot deny that which i have not fully sought to understand first.The only true religion is the Truth itself.The time is now.And if that which we have accepted to be real does not last forever how truely real is it?
Life is Good and to have form is Good,God is Good,the power to gather together many members into an existence is not one of mindless principalities.May the force be with you.


[edit on 5-5-2006 by Hebrewsect]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Come on now... don't pawn off the discussion onto some one else. I'm not giving you links to have some one else pick it up... You are arguing for it, you give your evidence... If there is 29+ pick one....
You said speciation has been observed, by whom?
Also if I could have this answered....
"And also supposedly we evolved from micro organisms and so on and so forth...
So let me make this real easy, I am going to put a frog into a blender, grind it up. Now how long before it turns back into a frog? This is easier than your theory of evolution because you already have everything you need in the blender, but guess what... it will not happen, it will not turn back into a frog."
When I said that it was your religion, I said it because no one has any solid proof for it. It has no solid foundation, and also your definition said it was testable. What tests have been done to prove evolution correct? Without evidence, it is simply a theory, a proposed idea to believe in, or simply a religion... You can call my beliefs in God a theory as well... but I accept that it is a religion. It is the way I base my life on just as you do yours. If you knew you were going to be held accountable for your actions you would live a different life style.
God still Loves you no matter what.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
No, I have better things to do than to provide a remedial education in ToE for you. Watch the video, go to the link I posted, then ask me a question.

I'm off to copenhagen in a few hours to see the best band on this planet - I will be back late sunday.

If you mashed up a frog and waited a few billion years, maybe a frog-like species would result. Your questions are silly...sorry...

Many species has been observed to speciate, both in the lab and the field...



A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

www.talkorigins.org...

Spend the weekend reading the 29+ evidences, then when I get back sunday, maybe we can discuss something useful.

I still love you no matter what...



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
So you can't stand on your own two feet in this discussion.... too bad... I too am busy but the world needs to hear the good news of Jesus Christ.
I believe that a mosquito produced another mosquito, that is the best evidence... How about a mosquito producing a dog, or a banana, or even a human.... why does it have to be just another mosquito... Doesn't sound real convincing to me. That would be like saying a human that had a baby with only nine fingers just produced a new kind of human.... but guess what, it's still a human...
My religion also offers us a promise for the future.
For God so Loved the world, that He gave His one and only son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by Tanto]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tanto
So you can't stand on your own two feet in this discussion.... too bad... I too am busy but the world needs to hear the good news of Jesus Christ.
I believe that a mosquito produced another mosquito, that is the best evidence... How about a mosquito producing a dog, or a banana, or even a human.... why down it have to be just another mosquito... Doesn't sound real convincing to me. That would be like saying a human that had a baby with only nine fingers just produced a new kind of human.... but guess what, it's still a human...

Your just being silly now. Why would a mosquito produce a banana, dog, or human?

Willful ignorance is not very becoming. Maybe when I have time I'll walk you through it.

Here's a starter, 1 billion years ago, live was minimal, a few basic organisms. By examining the strata we see species gradually changing and becoming more 'complex' and diverse. First there was simple celled organisms, then inverts, then vertebrates. These first vertebrates eventually evolved into species that left water. On land species became more diverse - reptiles, then mammals and birds, eventually primates, apes including humans.

all this info. is contained in the strata. How do you explain this?

Evolution in a nutshell: species reproduce, when they reproduce there are differences in their genetics. If we take one separated population of mosquitos, over time this population will become different than the parent population. Over time we will have a new species, they will not be able to breed with the parent population (observed as quoted above). If this population remains separated and observe them 10,000 years later, they will be even more different than the parent population, 100,000 years, even more different, 1 million years, maybe completely unrecognisable to the parent population etc etc. - maybe they will be evolved enough to worship their own mosquito-like deity.

(i.e. descent with modification, or genetics over time).

[edit on 5-5-2006 by melatonin]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I'm glad that you brought it up. The geologic column is even more silly. Carbon dating is a far cry from science. There are so many variations you can come up with. Scientists have dated living snails to be thousands of years old. They have also different parts of the same animal to have thousands of years difference between them. Many times they date the materials according to the layer. They have already dated the rock layers by the materials found in them. This is circular reasoning. It's like me simply saying that I am right because you are wrong, and I know that you are wrong because I am right.
Again you said it was observed, by whom?
I'm curious to know many things about the geologic column. Like how are the petrified trees standing up, running through more than one layer. Each layer has several thousand, if not million years that it is supposed to represent... Last time I checked, when trees die, they eventually fall down, they don't become petrified through several thousand years of waiting for a new layer to form.
How do I explain this... well, let's see what the Bible says... O, I got it, there was a flood. So during this world wide flood, trees would be uprooted and thrown down again through hydrologic sorting, which would also explain the sorting of animals based on bone density, intellegence, and other facters. This would also explain why there are fossilized jelly fish and clams in the closed positions. Jelly fish decay and clams open when they die. Fossilized clams in the closed position can also be found at the top of mountains, how does your theory ezplain this?
As I'm sure you have heard, Noah and his family were the only survivers. Even many evolutionary scientists state that there was a genetic bottle neck somewhere in the last few thousand years.
Jesus reached out His arms on the cross for you, even today He stretches out His Loving hand for you to accept.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by Tanto]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The speciations have been recording and are available in the references provided in the quotes.

C-14 dating only goes back 50,000 to 60,000 years. Here's a post I made in another thread. You can take it on if you want...


OK, I'll let you provide sentinal's answer. I'm sure it would be 6,000-10,000. So, lets throw the first hurdle...

Lake varves in Japan can be dated to about 45,000yrs old. They measure the level of diatoms in lake sediments to provide this answer (they are seasonal, a bit like tree-rings).

Amazingly, these varve datings correlate with both dendrochronological data (tree-rings) and C-14 analysis. It also provides a calibration point for C-14.

Lake varves calibration

Lake varves II

So, 45,000yrs and counting...

If you can explain this away sentinal, we'll move on to the next level of evidence to an even older earth.


Flood theories are total rubbish. They cannot explain the ordering of fossils in the strata, or even the strata themselves. Mountains have been produced by plate tectonic forces, once they were under the ocean, continents colliding cause the land to rise, simple really. we observe it happening today.

thousand year old modern snails...

www.talkorigins.org...

circular reasoning - fossils date strata, strata date fossils...

www.talkorigins.org...

fossils ordered by hydrologic sorting...

www.talkorigins.org...

Polystrate trees...

www.talkorigins.org...

So, where did all this water come from for this flood? It apparently covered every mountain on earth. Must have been quite a bit of it about. How did noah get all the animals on the ark? Must've been a big boat, maybe it was tardis-like - I guess he was up to his neck in it. What did they meat-eaters eat, how much bamboo did he have for those panda's, did all plants survive being submerged under salty water? What did the insects eat? Wouldn't every species show the same bottleneck? How did 8 people look after all these animals? Where did the brontosaurus go?

How does hydrologic sorting sort by intelligence? Does it know the difference between a brontosaurus and a human?

Scientists have spent lifetimes working to provide an understanding of the world, they do love you and have provided evidence for you. All you need is to read good books and journals, for your convenience a video was provided, watch it...


[edit on 5-5-2006 by melatonin]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tanto
I'm glad that you brought it up. The geologic column is even more silly. Carbon dating is a far cry from science. There are so many variations you can come up with. Scientists have dated living snails to be thousands of years old. They have also different parts of the same animal to have thousands of years difference between them. Many times they date the materials according to the layer. They have already dated the rock layers by the materials found in them. This is circular reasoning. It's like me simply saying that I am right because you are wrong, and I know that you are wrong because I am right.[edit on 5-5-2006 by Tanto]
The MINIMUM RANGE for carbon dating is 5000 years. Of course a radiometric dating of a snail isn't going to be accurate. It's out of the range.

And all of this other "proof" I keep seeing against evolution is basically, "I don't know how this evolved, therefore the entire theory of evoluion is false".
If you REALLY want to disprove evolution, find an animal with the head of a lizard, the body of a whale, and the feet of a bird or something. To prove evolution wrong, you have to disprove one of its basic concepts, or find something that goes against what it predicts.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
What happened?

Original participants on this thread, where have you all gone?

Our fascinating little philosophical discussion has been flung right off the rails by the adamantine cowcatcher of the Great Creationist Conspiracy in the Sky.

Aren't there already enough threads on ATS dedicated to arguing the literal truth of Genesis, the limits of radiocarbon dating and the halo'ed miracles of St. Polonium? We were debating something genuinely interesting here; why did all that stuff have to come barging into our playroom?

From Augustine and Aquinus to Young-Earth Creationism in a single page. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Bye-bye all, I'm off to find a thread with better conversation in it.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by XB70
The MINIMUM RANGE for carbon dating is 5000 years. Of course a radiometric dating of a snail isn't going to be accurate. It's out of the range.

And all of this other "proof" I keep seeing against evolution is basically, "I don't know how this evolved, therefore the entire theory of evoluion is false".
If you REALLY want to disprove evolution, find an animal with the head of a lizard, the body of a whale, and the feet of a bird or something. To prove evolution wrong, you have to disprove one of its basic concepts, or find something that goes against what it predicts.


Please provide a source for your claim that the "minimum range for carbon dating is 5000 years."


Generally, we can date things pretty well over the past 1000 years, it becomes difficult from about 1700 AD to 1900 AD because of natural changes in radiocarbon, and since 1950 AD dating is quite possible.


Zip

[edit on 5/9/2006 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
"thousand year old modern snails... www.talkorigins.org..."
This doesn't explain how they can date different parts of the same animal to have thousands of years in between them. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions which doesn't allow it to be reliable.
"circular reasoning - fossils date strata, strata date fossils... www.talkorigins.org..."
They fail to mention how they ignore fossils that are found in the "wrong layer" to fit the time. And also "The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating" is a quote from them... again, it is unreliable.
"fossils ordered by hydrologic sorting... www.talkorigins.org..."
A flood would use hydrologic sorting for many things, and as they said said in this arguement that, "A flood that lays down massive quantities of sediments would jumble up most of them" which would explain for a creationist why there are some things that appear out of order... but for an evolutionist to have something millions or even billions of years before or after the supposed layer it should have been in, well, they don't have a good answer...
"Polystrate trees... www.talkorigins.org..."
They try and argue that the tree can grow slowly in place and actually take thousands of years, then they switch the arguement to say "individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time". So are they saying that it happened fast or slow... they sound like they're confused and just making more assumptions...
So where did all the water come from... If you read Genesis closely you can find this answer Genesis 1:6-7 speaks of God creating a firmament to divide the waters below from the waters above. Before then the Bible says there was a mist that watered the earth. Genesis 7:11 says "...the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." So in addition to rain, this is where the water would have come from. And yes it did cover every mountain. It states this in Genesis and also Psalms 14:6-9 The waters were standing above the mounains, at your rebuke they fled... the mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, so that they will not cover the earth.
Scientists have calculated that there isn't enough water to cover all the mountains... but if they weren't as high as they are now... I think you can figure it out. The Bible agrees with science. Also it just backs God's promise that He wouldn't flood the entire earth again.
As far as meat-eaters, Genesis 1:29-31 and 9:3 says that everything was vegetarian until after the flood. You also assumed that adult animals would be taken. If they took youths, they would take less space, eat less, and sleep more, or even hibernate as many animals do during bad weather. The Bible says that there were two of most "kinds" of animals. This would mean that Noah didn't have to bring two of each species, but of each kind. A dog, coyote, wolf, and mutt are all the same kind. Genesis 6:20 says that the animals came to Noah, so he didn't have to go out and collect them all... You also assume that the salt content is the same then that it is today. The oceans are gaining salt, not losing it. Genesis 1:9 says that all the water under heaven was gathered in one place so there wouldn't be fresh water and salt water, and again, they probably had some salt, but not like the oceans do today.
Yes it was a big boat.
I never said that hydrologic sorting had intellegence, I was simply meaning that some animals are smarter than others and better equipped to not die as quick during a world-wide flood.

This is too much to answer in one posting so I have the next one coming...

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Tanto]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
"Where did the brontosaurus go?" Well as for all dinosaurs... if you look at the pre-flood world as I already mentioned there was a firmament to seperate waters from above from waters below... this would have allowed for higher oxegen content similar to a hyperbaric air chamber. This would also explain how humans could have lived to be 900+ years. Humans today have horrible eating habits and physical conditioning compared to humans before. Most reptiles never stop growing so it you were to place them into conditions like this, they would become huge... Where are they now? Many could not survive with the new conditions of the earth. The word dinosaur hasn't been around for more than a couple hundred years, before they were called dragons and were killed by dragon hunters. There are hundreds if not thousands of ancient legends of dragon hunters or dragons bothering villages. There are several drawings on Ica stones and cave walls. There are foot prints of man and dinosaurs at the same place...
Also, there are 300+ ancient legends from many cultures of one family surviving a flood and reproducing the entire population. As well as many ancient legends of a "golden era" where man lived to be several hundreds of years old.
What about the question, are dinosaurs still out there? Of course the are hundreds of reptiles still alive. Large dinosaur like ones? I haven't been all places at all times to know for sure, but there are several tribes in places such as african swamps who say that they have seen some "large lizards"... Also several people who say they have seen them at sea, even such people as reputable navy officers...

"And all of this other "proof" I keep seeing against evolution is basically, "I don't know how this evolved, therefore the entire theory of evoluion is false". "
You are correct that I don't know how much of this evolved, but the part I was trying to point out is that evolutionists don't either...
"If you REALLY want to disprove evolution, find an animal with the head of a lizard, the body of a whale, and the feet of a bird or something."
If you want to disprove creation find an animal with pink polka-dots, yellow strips, 3 1/2 legs, and only eats pizza... What are you talking about?
"To prove evolution wrong, you have to disprove one of its basic concepts, or find something that goes against what it predicts." If you want to use your theory as fact, you have to prove it right, not me prove it wrong in order for you not to use it... That's just silly... What predictions does it make, I still haven't seen a human produce anything other than a human...

2 Peter 3:3-7 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Interesting how another prophecy made by the Bible is coming true...

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Tanto]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Something you missed...

"OK, I'll let you provide sentinal's answer. I'm sure it would be 6,000-10,000. So, lets throw the first hurdle...

Lake varves in Japan can be dated to about 45,000yrs old. They measure the level of diatoms in lake sediments to provide this answer (they are seasonal, a bit like tree-rings).

Amazingly, these varve datings correlate with both dendrochronological data (tree-rings) and C-14 analysis. It also provides a calibration point for C-14.

Lake varves calibration

Lake varves II

So, 45,000yrs and counting...

If you can explain this away sentinal, we'll move on to the next level of evidence to an even older earth."

Does your bible explain this away? I think you'll find it's your bible that is unreliable not the science...


"If you REALLY want to disprove evolution, find an animal with the head of a lizard, the body of a whale, and the feet of a bird or something."
If you want to disprove creation find an animal with pink polka-dots, yellow strips, 3 1/2 legs, and only eats pizza... What are you talking about?


If you had any understanding of ToE you would know why this would disprove evoluton. But your god could produce anything he liked, even a polka-dotted pizza eater. It can explain everything and nothing.

The fact you are still looking for "a human [to] produce anything other than a human... " to confirm ToE consolidates this.

Can you outline what a "kind" is? I'm yet to see a YEC give a useful definition of this...


[edit on 9-5-2006 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join