An open letter to Creationists

Originally posted by J.Smit

Interesting signature. Maybe you should take look at the history of any Communist-state, to see atheism is a non-prophet, all profit for Government community religion. The community is the all, the induvidual is nothing and the Leaders get all the profits.

Happens wherever good evolution is taught and God's preachers are bought.

maybe you should look up personality cult?

its not athiestic, they remove god and replace it with the leader to make him a low grade divine bieng all seeing all knowing that make themselves a mini jesus for thier people

"After Stalin's death, the Central Committee began to implement a policy of explaining concisely and consistently that it is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics, akin to those of a god. Such a man supposedly knows everything, sees everything, thinks for everyone, can do anything, is infallible in his behavior."

en.wikipedia.org...
he wanted to be the new jesus ..... thats not athiesm

so show me how totalitarian fascism necessarily follows from atheism, and then you'll have something.

Originally posted by J.Smit

As soon as the evolutionaries can explain how a book wrote itself, i might be tempted to discard the notion of creation. Until then,

better crack open the judgment day survival kit

the easy answer is ask a biologist with a doctorate in the field of Molecular Neuroscience who does this stuff every day, especially if he is nice enough to have a youtube channel to help people learn and understand

reply to post by noobfun


Hmmmm No answers in your last Comments????

Come on you must be able to do better than this, You disappoint me I gave you credit for more Intelligence, Perhaps I am wrong about you???

But I will remain the Eternal optimist about you....

It will be interesting to see your views over the next few weeks...

I'll keep an eye on your other comments to others on your favourite subjects!

But I still remain the Eternal optimist for you, as I admire your stubborn attitude and devotion to your beliefs...

And I know that you crave for the Knowledge of Truth but are frightened to look out side that cave.... LOL

But I do have a spot spot for your endurance and convictions.

It will be interesting in seeing how your beliefs pan out over the coming weeks....

Peace... for now anyway...

Originally posted by J.Smit
reply to post by noobfun

 

Interesting signature. Maybe you should take look at the history of any Communist-state, to see atheism is a non-prophet, all profit for Government community religion. The community is the all, the induvidual is nothing and the Leaders get all the profits.

Happens wherever good evolution is taught and God's preachers are bought.

As opposed to having the church own you and take your money? So far I cannot find one huge branch of government that is as willing to take my money, tell me what to do, and have sex with my 11 yr old son, but I have found several churches that are just about all about that stuff. What is your point? Either way someone is taking our money and controlling us. I would rather it is not the ones regularly trying to buy 12 yr old wives and fondle 12 yr old boys.

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
-Confuse evolution with abiogenesis

they're both truncated theories, and neither vindicates the other, so it's not a big deal.

-Confuse evolution with the big bang theory

i've never seen that one. That's sort of scary.

-Claim evolution has never been observed

Mind your tongue, in modern history, it hasn't. Mechanisms of evolution have, but not evolution.

-Claim there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, and

one can not objectively claim that there are or aren't. To claim either is pure impudence.

-Claim that apes shouldn't be around if humans evolved from them.

indeed, a silly claim.

All of these claims are false,

the first claim seems valid to me.

my purpose in responding to threads is usually to attempt to educate people about the issue at hand, not to be insulting.

you're coming across as a bit audacious, claiming to know what is true or false my friend.

I think everyone should have a basic knowledge of science, because it's so important to our world.

science is important, but the correct application of science is more important.

Originally posted by JPhish

they're both truncated theories, and neither vindicates the other, so it's not a big deal.

it is when they sytart trying to disprove abiogenesis to disprove evolution

-i've never seen that one. That's sort of scary.

really? havnt you heard of the 6 points of evolution they are teaching(creationists money gatherers) to the masses

peterguysixtypes.ytmnd.com...

its standard practice, if they cloak it all as evoultion they dont have to list just how many branches of science they have to take on including trignometry when going for a young earth

Mind your tongue, in modern history, it hasn't. Mechanisms of evolution have, but not evolution.

evolution is the mechansims to explain the taxonomical tree's linnaues created by compared anatomy

if we have seen the mechanisms we have seen evolution

macro evolution at its lowest form will lead to new species that are unable to produce viable mates with others of thier genus,

micro-at a cellular level
macro-at or above the species level

one can not objectively claim that there are or aren't. To claim either is pure impudence.

or you can be honest and say all fossil all living creatures are transitionary, as they are all changing by an average of 4 mutations per generation per population group

couldnt find the quote i was after it was the national science institute saying back in 98 we have so many transitional fossils at has no become difficult to tell where the line is from one class to another

you're coming across as a bit audacious, claiming to know what is true or false my friend.

that may be but he is still correct

science is important, but the correct application of science is more important.

how do you apply it correctly if you dont have the foundation knowledge? you need one to do the other

so both foundation knowledge and correct apllication are important

Hey everyone...
I'm always late to the party .

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


I agree 100%

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
2. Why are we so hostile to creationists? I don't think that's our intent, but you know, there's a reason a lot of my posts in this forum are at least partially written in sarcasm.

I've actually noticed an order which never fails. First you debate the points to a creationist, and then, once they put themselves in a corner and have no where to go, they resort to the "why are you against Christ? You're evil.. blah blah blah...".
I have seen some atheists who seem to be enraged at Christianity for some reason, but the vast majority just like to discuss their beliefs the same as anyone else.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
ATS' motto is "Deny Ignorance" and I can't think of anything far more ignorant than the inane backwards view of Science than I see in videos done by Creation Science Evangelism, Way of the Master, or Answers In Genesis.

My personal favorite is the misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which somehow disproves evolution . That would be akin to me using a computer manual to disprove God .

Originally posted by noobfun
it is when they sytart trying to disprove abiogenesis to disprove evolution

I agree, but if someone is attempting to use that “obtuse angle” in a debate; I’d imagine you should easily be able to rebut it . . .

really? havnt you heard of the 6 points of evolution they are teaching(creationists money gatherers) to the masses

peterguysixtypes.ytmnd.com...

its standard practice, if they cloak it all as evoultion they dont have to list just how many branches of science they have to take on including trignometry when going for a young earth

no, I hadn’t heard of it, but thanks for the link.

if we have seen the mechanisms we have seen evolution

macro evolution at its lowest form will lead to new species that are unable to produce viable mates with others of thier genus,

micro-at a cellular level
macro-at or above the species level

Have we ever observed evolution create new species? If we have, that’s news to me.

or you can be honest and say all fossil all living creatures are transitionary, as they are all changing by an average of 4 mutations per generation per population group.

All fossils may be “transitional” but not necessarily transitional forms between two divergent species. There’s a difference.

couldnt find the quote i was after it was the national science institute saying back in 98 we have so many transitional fossils at has no become difficult to tell where the line is from one class to another

that’s because they’re thinking linearly, which is (I believe) the wrong approach.

that may be but he is still correct

Depends on the terms

how do you apply it correctly if you dont have the foundation knowledge? you need one to do the other

so both foundation knowledge and correct apllication are important

ehhhh . . . science is the pursuit of knowledge of the universe; The only things one needs to practice it, is understanding of the scientific method, and decent logistic skills. SOME preconceived “knowledge” (BELIEFS) are actually detrimental in my opinion.


[edit on 12/7/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish

I agree, but if someone is attempting to use that “obtuse angle” in a debate; I’d imagine you should easily be able to rebut it . . .

makes it a little harder if you really want to go there as you need to learn a whole lot more then biology

but if you just call them on it it gets them flustered usually

Have we ever observed evolution create new species? If we have, that’s news to me.

weve seen it in labs since at least 1972 the earliest one i know of

speciation splits them into subspecies, when genetic level changes have altered them enough and they can no longer cross breed you have a new and distinct species

its macro evolution at its earliest point,

Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

www.talkorigins.org...

this puts it above species level change into genus level

we havnt observed it all out in more complex organisms for one simple reason, slower generation rates leading to buildup of mutations

but we see the start of it and taxonomy, genetic comparision, fossil record work from the end backwards, so while we dont see the whole process day by day we understand how it works and see snap shots of it in action through the fossil record

its like a criminal investigation start at the end of the crime and work backwards to find the clues and and the killer, evolution always ends up being the guilty party

All fossils may be “transitional” but not necessarily transitional forms between two divergent species. There’s a difference.

a divergance in species wont neccesarily show physical changes, at higher taxonomy class events which would be higher level macro evolution then we still have those

we have a chain of fossils that start out fishlike and get more amphibain like until they have to reclassed as amphibains which have fish like charachteristics

palentologists are always arguing which side of the divide to put things fish/amphibian amphibian/reptile reptile/bird reptile/mammal

modern day reptiles and mammals show vast differeance between them theres no question which side of the divide they sit on, as you go back into the fossil record the lines of when one became the other get blurry as they are a jumble of both charachteristics you cant conclusivley draw a line in them and say this is when they became mammals becasue they still have reptilian triats for millions of years until they become what we now class as a deffinition of mammal

that’s because they’re thinking linearly, which is (I believe) the wrong approach.

blame linneaus for inventing taxonomy and giving us our way to classify

Depends on the terms

by the theory of evolution taxonomy phylogenetic studies he is

the only real room for variance is if you use the BSC or PSC deffinition of species, and its still fairly accurate to that

ehhhh . . . science is the pursuit of knowledge of the universe; The only things one needs to practice it, is understanding of the scientific method, and decent logistic skills. SOME preconceived “knowledge” (BELIEFS) are actually detrimental in my opinion.

i agree, its the lies to children approach we use to teach though, start out with a simplified version then advance it as thier understanding gets better, we also need to better teach the methodology along side the foundational knowledge so it becomes easier to apply to the knowledge

rather then teach the foundaton knowledge then the methodology gets shoved in at some point, because that way the methedology in some cases works against the foundation knowledge as its been simplified

they need to be evened out a little so you understand a way to think about the foundation knowledge rather just understand what that knowledge says



[edit on 7/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 7/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfunweve seen it in labs since at least 1972 the earliest one i know of

speciation splits them into subspecies, when genetic level changes have altered them enough and they can no longer cross breed you have a new and distinct species

yeah, pretty sure that's never been observed.

its macro evolution at its earliest point,

in theory.

Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

www.talkorigins.org...

this puts it above species level change into genus level

no, it doesn't actually.

we havnt observed it all out in more complex organisms for one simple reason, slower generation rates leading to buildup of mutations

we haven't seen it within simplistic organisms either, because it can't happen, FOR A FACT, with single celled organisms.

but we see the start of it and taxonomy, genetic comparision, fossil record work from the end backwards, so while we dont see the whole process day by day we understand how it works and see snap shots of it in action through the fossil record

the fossils that can not be interpreted objectively.

its like a criminal investigation start at the end of the crime and work backwards to find the clues and and the killer, evolution always ends up being the guilty party

Firstly, using fossil "clues" and subjective inferences ex post facto is called "ground and consequence"; which should never be applied to science.
bacteria becoming divergent species is inherently false; there is no such thing as different species of bacteria or anything else that reproduces A sexually. Bacteria are supposed to be classified in to phyla. I'm fairly certain we've never witnessed the emergence of a new species from another due to the current theoretical evolutionary process. Current evolutionary theorists are merely graying the terms here in an attempt to make everything amenable.


[edit on 12/8/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
yeah, pretty sure that's never been observed.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

www.biology.gatech.edu... heres one caught in the action

in theory.

in evolutionary theory yes, the lowest possible form would be speration of species leading to sterileility or inablity to hybridise

in the case of Culex molestus and Culex pipiens have created a ring species event in the london underground, where thier envirrments allow them to meet they can and do produce viable hybrids but in more isolated colonies Culex pipiens have become unable to produce any offspring let alone viable offspring when attempted hybridisation took place
www.nature.com...

no, it doesn't actually.

the genus up until this point was described as only containing unicellular organisms

they had to alter it to include the new colonial variety

we haven't seen it within simplistic organisms either, because it can't happen, FOR A FACT, with single celled organisms.

strong assertion,

so single cell organisims cant become colonial like the new varient of Chlorella vulgaris? cant then show adaptive cell behaviour like Volvix with some cells producing the bulk of the food to allow others to concentrate on matingwww.denniskunkel.com...? or how about switching between a-sexual and sexual reproduction through enviromental stress eebweb.arizona.edu...

no great leaps between them if enviromental factors reduced thier baility to commit asexual reproduction further specialisation wont be far behind

or single cell slime moulds when presented with a shortage of food join together to produce a multicelluar organism to travel further faster

the fossils that can not be interpreted objectively.

how about just looking at inner ears rather then the whole fossil? the inner ear structure of the fossil line from Pakicetus shows a continued refinement in the S shaped tympanic ear bone(only found in cetaceans) right up to modern whales increasing its ability for direction hearing underwater

honestly how much more objective can you be only using the inner ear bones and forgetting the rest of the fossil?

but now we have that through line established if we explore the hind quarters the fossils when arranged in time order show an atavistic shortening of the hind limbs until they disappear altogther, they some times reappear as atavisms in some whales a dolphins with tiny underdevolped hind legs in the same way human atavisms lead to furry faces

the same can be done with just skulls or jawbones showing the change from say ampibian to reptilian theres a gradual line of change where reptilian features appear and over take and replace amphibian characteristics

bacteria becoming divergent species is inherently false; there is no such thing as different species of bacteria or anything else that reproduces A sexually.

an algae that changes from a purely unicellular to purley colonial variation would be what?

Bacteria are supposed to be classified in to phyla.

all species wether uni or mluticellular are calssed in to phyla, thats a taxanomical grouping in linnean taxonomy

Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

in botanical taxonomy phyla or phylum becomes division






[edit on 8/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102. .

Single celled A sexual organisms should not be classified using the word specie.

www.biology.gatech.edu... heres one caught in the action.

Those fish are not different species. May be they will be one day, but not today.

in the case of Culex molestus and Culex pipiens have created a ring species event in the london underground, where thier envirrments allow them to meet they can and do produce viable hybrids but in more isolated colonies Culex pipiens have become unable to produce any offspring let alone viable offspring when attempted hybridisation took place
www.nature.com...

What were the factors of the breading experiments between the two vastly different forms of this mosquito? There are other factors that might attribute to their inability to mate; the pheromones, physical form, etc. may be so drastically different at this point that even though they might produce fertile offspring, they don’t try to. When they’ve tried in vitro fertilization and it fails; I’ll believe and concede that they are two completely different species.

the genus up until this point was described as only containing unicellular organisms
they had to alter it to include the new colonial variety

cool, but creatures colonizing does not make them a different species.

strong assertion,

so single cell organisims cant become colonial like the new varient of Chlorella vulgaris? cant then show adaptive cell behaviour like Volvix with some cells producing the bulk of the food to allow others to concentrate on matingwww.denniskunkel.com...? or how about switching between a-sexual and sexual reproduction through enviromental stress eebweb.arizona.edu...

yes it was but I’ll stand by it until refuted; animals becoming colonial, reacting to environmental stress or volvix cells being opportunistic is not speciation. By the terms I am using.

no great leaps between them if enviromental factors reduced thier baility to commit asexual reproduction further specialisation wont be far behind

in theory.

or single cell slime moulds when presented with a shortage of food join together to produce a multicelluar organism to travel further faster

Source? Link? I don’t believe that makes them different species but that’s really awesome!

honestly how much more objective can you be only using the inner ear bones and forgetting the rest of the fossil? .

You can never strive to hard in the pursuit of objectiveness. Though, the ear approach seems rather esoteric to me; so I don’t know.

but now we have that through line established if we explore the hind quarters the fossils when arranged in time order show an atavistic shortening of the hind limbs until they disappear altogther, they some times reappear as atavisms in some whales a dolphins with tiny underdevolped hind legs in the same way human atavisms lead to furry faces

the same can be done with just skulls or jawbones showing the change from say ampibian to reptilian theres a gradual line of change where reptilian features appear and over take and replace amphibian characteristics

yes, all well and good, but are all of these findings congruent with each other?

an algae that changes from a purely unicellular to purley colonial variation would be what?

Algae adapting; we can’t test the algae to see if it can still reproduce with itself. So unless science officially re-defines its’ terms (which I hope it does) we’ll forever be in the gray.

all species wether uni or mluticellular are calssed in to phyla, thats a taxanomical grouping in linnean taxonomy

Yes, maybe, I’m using the wrong word (seems I am . .) but aren’t microorganisms unable to be classified into special groups so there is another less defined word used to describe microorganisms that have different traits? The word escapes me.

reply to post by JPhish

Single celled A sexual organisms should not be classified using the word specie.

Yes, maybe, I’m using the wrong word (seems I am . .) but aren’t microorganisms unable to be classified into special groups so there is another less defined word used to describe microorganisms that have different traits? The word escapes me.

They are defined as species. Species of asexual reproducing organism are differentiated by morphology.

[edit on 9/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

i think what one "believes" should be left up to the individual. it's when a "belief" is used to control others, that all efforts to stop it should be used.

atleast sotires of creattionism were writtn arund the time it happened.

never knew man witness the big bang...

if u can not beleive in creationism how on earth can u beleive in evolution. a theory not based on any fact what so ever..


like i said atleast what has been passed on through the generations on god has some truth to it.

in scripture..
bible...
quran
historians etc....

Originally posted by JPhish
Single celled A sexual organisms should not be classified using the word specie.

better let the worlds phycology departments and otehr branches of taxonomy that deal with unicelular organisms know then

they still use species

Those fish are not different species. May be they will be one day, but not today.

thats why i said caught in the act of doing it

What were the factors of the breading experiments between the two vastly different forms of this mosquito? There are other factors that might attribute to their inability to mate; the pheromones, physical form, etc. may be so drastically different at this point that even though they might produce fertile offspring, they don’t try to. When they’ve tried in vitro fertilization and it fails; I’ll believe and concede that they are two completely different species.

you did read it right? both species where enviorments over lap hybridise succesfully, the colonies of pipiens that are more isolated can all interbreed with each other but the one mating that did lead to an egg raft bieng formed by the female contained sterile eggs and failed

physical forms etc are similar enough to allow hybridisation in overlapping areas but the more isolated are gentically unable to

its a partially formed ring species

cool, but creatures colonizing does not make them a different species.

it does when unicelluar algae suddenly do somthing they shouldnt which removes them from the genus they are in and leaves them nowhere to go as there was no genus that described what it was they were upto so they were forced to do one of two things, create a new genus or modify the existing one to allow them to go back in, the took the easy option

if you removed 1 cell from the colony and put it in isolation it would multipuly and imediate begin to form colonies again rather then returning to unicellularity

unicellular organisms are classed taxonomically on cell morphology and behaviour, it became a new strain of Chlorella its behaviour and love of hippie comunes reclassified it as a new species and required the genus description changing to fit

yes it was but I’ll stand by it until refuted; animals becoming colonial, reacting to environmental stress or volvix cells being opportunistic is not speciation. By the terms I am using.

then use the correct ones? sounds like your using the BSC model which doesnt work very well with ring species as they all become subspecies but at either end they cant hybridise and that should NEVER be applied to asexual species such as Chlorella

Source? Link? I don’t believe that makes them different species but that’s really awesome!

no it doesnt make the slime moulds different species but it just show just how blurry the lines can be, even complex mulitcelluar organisms are basically a bag of cells co-operating like the slime moulds and volvox do

After gorging itself sufficiently, it divides in two, and the new pair go their separate, bacteria-devouring ways. But if the Dictyostelium in a stamp-size plot of soil should eat their surroundings clean, they send each other alarm signals. They then use the signals to steer toward their neighbors, and as many as a million amoebae converge in a swirling mound. The mound itself begins to act as if it were a single organism. It stretches out into a bullet-shaped slug the size of a sand grain, slithers up toward the surface of the soil, probes specks of dirt, and turns around when it hits a dead end. Its movements are slow - it needs a day to travel an inch - but the deliberateness of the movements eerily evokes an it rather than a they.

After several hours, the Dictyostelium slug goes through another change. The back end catches up with the tip, and the slug turns into a blob. About 20 percent of the cells move to the top of the blob and produce a slender stalk. In order to keep the stalk from flopping over, these cells must produce rigid bundles of cellulose. Unfortunately, this cellulose also tears apart the amoebae that make it. The remaining amoebae in the blob then take advantage of the suicide of their slugmates. They slide up to the top and form a globe. Each amoeba in the globe covers itself in a cellulose coat and becomes a dormant spore. In this form the colony will wait until something - a drop of rainwater, a passing worm, the foot of a bird - picks up the spores and takes them to a bacteria-rich place where they can emerge from their shells and start their lives over.

scienceblogs.com...

You can never strive to hard in the pursuit of objectiveness. Though, the ear approach seems rather esoteric to me; so I don’t know.

i agree objectivness should eb applied as best as possible

but if it works on the fossils as a whole and on just 1 bone thats pretty well proven as objective and correct

yes, all well and good, but are all of these findings congruent with each other?

yes

Algae adapting; we can’t test the algae to see if it can still reproduce with itself. So unless science officially re-defines its’ terms (which I hope it does) we’ll forever be in the gray.

yepp your using teh BSC model of species deffinition, it has some flaws in its ability but for the most part is accurate so we have a couple of others to handle what it cant

the taxonomists know what they are doing they have been at it for for 250 years

Yes, maybe, I’m using the wrong word (seems I am . .) but aren’t microorganisms unable to be classified into special groups so there is another less defined word used to describe microorganisms that have different traits? The word escapes me.

they are still classed the same way as everything else even unicellular asexual entities

reply to post by gate13

like i said atleast what has been passed on through the generations on god has some truth to it.

in scripture..
bible...
quran
historians etc....

By this logic we can't solve murders because the only people around to see the event was the murderer and the victim. Apparently we cannot use deductive logic to determine events we weren't around for.

..yep that's creationism logic for you.

Originally posted by gate13
atleast sotires of creattionism were writtn arund the time it happened.

thats funny the OT is around 3500-4000 years old so still 2000 years short of the imaginary YEC model

and most of it was pladgerised from the egyptians and babylonians

i guess that first bits wrong

never knew man witness the big bang...

well that would be impossible so

if u can not beleive in creationism how on earth can u beleive in evolution.

one iuses facts data testing predictions to model its accuracy, the others a pladgerised retelling of older stories ....

wonder why i dontr believe creationism .... ahh thats right the same reason i dont beleive in santa either, its made up

a theory based based purley on facts testing predictions and evidence to validate itsself

i think you meant

like i said atleast what has been passed on through the generations on god has some truth to it.

yes that it has been passed on throgh generations ... but thats about where the truth to it ends except for use as a shoddy historical guide for archaeologists who end up disproving as much if not more of it then they prove

reply to post by noobfun


No, the Old Testament wasn't 'plagiarized' from the Sumerians.
It was just an ORAL tradition centuries before it was written down.
After the fall of Babel, the Sumerians and Babylonians incorporated THEIR NEW religion into those stories.

Originally posted by Clearskies

No, the Old Testament wasn't 'plagiarized' from the Sumerians.
It was just an ORAL tradition centuries before it was written down.
After the fall of Babel, the Sumerians and Babylonians incorporated THEIR NEW religion into those stories.

fair enough then

must be true then except the babylonian stories predate the biblical ones

the exodus couldnt/didnt happen

and the whole of judaism is a cross between ahkenatans monotheism (the first of its kind) and other regional religeons



i guess your gonna actually have to prove your right for once

[edit on 9/12/08 by noobfun]