creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

reply to post by heliosprime


Yes

This is not a one-word reply.

reply to post by heliosprime


So you believe that god layered rocks in their chronological ages from oldest to newest?

reply to post by monkey_descendant


Yes...and god took his big hands, after layering the crust (and hiding the oil underground) and, like Play-Doh, squeezed it to make mountains....then blew on it with his breath to erode some mountains, but left others (the Alps, the Andes) virtually untouched.

Of course, that took a great deal of delicate skill, since the thickness of the Earth's crust, when compared to the size of the globe, is like comparing the skin of an apple to its entire size. Our planet is a hot, gooey mess of an interior with a thin, cool crust....right out of the oven.

4.5 billion years on, the interior stays hot, because of the pressures involved, for one thing...and the surface keeps on churning...helios, did you know the Atlantic ocean is getting gradually wider, every year? About one or two inches per year.

www.allaboutcreation.org...
Any info to refute the claim that the radiometric dating could be flawed due to accelerated decay in the past puting the 1.5billion year old rocks really at 4 to 14 thousand based upon helium content?
Any thoughts appreciated since this is way over my head.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Ppl.....I'm not a scientist, but have seen this type of argument before...at first glance, it is riddled with inaccuracies, and draws conclusions to attempt to bolster one case, while ignoring the preponderance of other evidence....

I think it's called the 'strawman' argument. You build something up, based on what you wish to refute, and then do the 'three-card-monte' trick to appear to knock down the original points.....

The 'article' conveniently ignores other, well-established methods of radio-carbon dating....and ignores basic nuclear physics.

It certainly looks like ID/Creationism won't be taught in secular public schools any time soon. That's true.

However, being a free thinker, it's nice to know I don't need to have scientists or the scientific method confirm what is plain as day to me. And that is, that it didn't happen randomly.

The scientific method cannot tell me when I am happy or sad. I don't need a scientist to tell me when it is raining outside. I don't need the consensus of the scientific community to tell me when my head is hurting. So is the same with design. It's so obvious and it astounds me that some need it to be confirmed by someone else and have them tell them what to believe before they believe it. Observe:



It is obvious to everyone here that the barn and road were created by design but there are only a few of us who seem in-tune enough to realize that the organic material in the above photos is infinitely more complex. So I suppose the materialists can believe what science tells them and instruct others to do the same. In the mean time, those of us who can think for ourselves and don't depend on what others tell us to believe can see the design of the foliage, the swans, the horses, and the unseen fish in the water.

Knowing what you know isn't dependent on the confirmation of an outside party.

Edited for typos because I can't spell today.

[edit on 5/19/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

Oo, pitty pitty pitchuss.

Nature is beautiful, therefore Gob cweated it.

Best cweationist argument on the thwead so far.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Looks like somebody totally missed the point.

Why am I not surprised?

Now I'm waiting on someone to counter my opinion with bringing up parasites that reside in the eyes, deformities, and barren wastelands. Or bring to my attention what they will assume I missed: that the scientific method cannot tell me when my head is hurting but can explain to me why it hurts. You guys are getting way too predictable.

[edit on 5/19/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

There was a point?

I mean, apart from tacitly admitting defeat by advancing ever more risible apologies for argument?

There, there, never mind. I'm sure posting pictures from some sub-Hallmark kitchen calendar is a perfectly sound scientific gambit in cweatinist googooland.

reply to post by Astyanax


Thank you again, Elmer Fudd. I am immensely proud to be a 'cweationist.' That's pretty cute. I might even put that on a t-shirt.

You can have your materialist limitations of science while I will take what science can give me along with reason.

And it humors me you refer to my above argument as scientific. Didn't we already have this discussion in depth on multiple threads? You're a peach, Nasty Asty. But please don't think I'm playing kindergarten games to make fun of someone's alias. I'm calling you such a thing because you are consistently nasty and spiteful.

Now I promise to be 'vewy, vewy quiet' while you hunt your rabbits.

reply to post by AshleyD

Great style, AshleyD. Shame about the content.

But then, thats always the cwetinist pwobwem, isn't it?

reply to post by Astyanax


Don't blame me.

I'm becoming very adept at convowuted wogic after weading so many posts from the ATS evowootionists.

I may vewy well cweate my own pwoblem with baby talk if it seems you nasty hunters are baiting on this thwead.

reply to post by AshleyD


Ashley, I am a little confused by your pictures, and what point you attempted to make. They are pretty pictures, no doubt...

But in the'scheme' of things, what are you trying to prove by showing them?

If I may hazard a guess...and please correct me if I'm way off-base...you were attempting to show that a human being can build a barn, with materials (i.e., wood) that was somehow 'created' by some other being....??? Am I close to your point??

By that analogy, it makes us Humans no better than a Carpenter Ant....or a termite....

I must take some umbrage at that concept.

While it's true that Humans, as other creatures, use what is avavailable in the environment t serve their purposes...even going as far as using basic tools, as we see in various species....Humans far transcend those basics!!

Ashley, as a thoughtful, and compassionate person....I've seen many of your posts, and I find you to be erudite and well-spoken (that's redundant, isn't it??:lol

Unlikely I, or even a few others, will find a way to convince you of the immensity of the timescales involved, in the incredible diversity that our planet, and indeed, the entire Universe have, and how things that appear to have 'popped into existence' just a few thousand years ago actually required millions of years of evolution.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
If I may hazard a guess...and please correct me if I'm way off-base...you were attempting to show that a human being can build a barn, with materials (i.e., wood) that was somehow 'created' by some other being....??? Am I close to your point??

Something along those lines, yes. If a barn or a road clearly takes a creator, how much more so would it be for organic life with all its complexity. But my arguments are more philosophical than scientific at the moment, I will admit.

By that analogy, it makes us Humans no better than a Carpenter Ant....or a termite....

I'm partial to the analogy of a potter and His clay.

I must take some umbrage at that concept.

That is perfectly fair. And I will continue to take note of the fact that science and what it can explain is defined as being limited to a naturalistic approach. What scientists tell me they observe is one thing, what I can observe is another.

While it's true that Humans, as other creatures, use what is avavailable in the environment t serve their purposes...even going as far as using basic tools, as we see in various species....Humans far transcend those basics!!

I couldn't agree more.

Unlikely I, or even a few others, will find a way to convince you of the immensity of the timescales involved in the incredible diversity that our planet, and indeed, the entire Universe have, and how things that appear to have 'popped into existence' just a few thousand years ago actually required millions of years of evolution.....

There will be no need for that. I am not a YEC.

Humans create great stuff.. which makes humans really great.. so therefore we must've been made in the image of something even greater!

It's not like nature could have had anything to do with creating humans using a slow biological process.. bacteria and plants maybe but humans are way too important to be just a product of natural evolution!

Now thats a god complex.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
Humans create great stuff.. which makes humans really great.. so therefore we must've been made in the image of something even greater!

It's not like nature could have had anything to do with creating humans using a slow biological process.. bacteria and plants maybe but humans are way too important to be just a product of natural evolution!

That's not remotely what I'm saying but it is interesting to see how gathered that from my above comments. If you feel like explaining, feel free.

Now thats god complex.

That's how I view secular humanists who believe we are the pinnacle of the evolutionary chain. Although creationists believe humans are the pinnacle of God's material creation, we acknowledge we are not the ultimate being.

reply to post by AshleyD


Off the top of my head, I can think of three things that show how imperfect the 'human being' is as a 'creation'....

The eye, the foot and the tooth....oh!! thought of one more....the appendix.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Imperfect? Of course we are imperfect. Genesis describes creation (including ours) as 'Good.' I don't recall the word 'perfect' ever being used. Not to mention nature being in a state of degeneration after the fall so I'm not sure how your arguments show a Biblical/Scientific contradiction in any way.



Anyways, I'm not here to get into another scientific evolution-creationism-ID debate as I have done many, many times on ATS. I understand this thread is not asking for such a debate but instead discussing how ID/Creationism was 'defeated' in the realm of science. Therefore, that is what my original post to this thread related to. I will admit my defeat in the realm of science and allow the secularists to rejoice. So, enjoy your science as far as it can take you. I'm not one for taking the wind out of anyone's sails and far be it from me to rip the champagne out of all of your hands. So, eat, drink, and be merry... You know the rest of that verse.

[edit on 5/19/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


Ash, I know that you're not (by your own admission) not a YEC.

I get that....and perhaps in an online discussion, those little details can get lost.

As to the concept of 'faith'....that certainly falls within the realm of 'spirituality'....unfortunately, many of these concepts....'faith', 'god', 'spiritualism' and 'religion' have different meanings to different people. And, arguments tend to ensue.

I have no intentions to argue with someone about his/her faith. What IS worth pointing out, however....is bad 'science'....when it is mis-used as a ploy to further a particular viewpoint.....that's all.