Pages: 1 … 33 34 35 36 37 … 51

Topic closed

2006-04-27 15:53:08
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS
He's fallen to that level becuase he can't summon any more arguments (from some crackpot creationist website, no doubt)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-27 18:29:52
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
Can you prove all the evidence from these sites are false?

I know u haved tried to answer some of my questions but i want to know what u think of these sites other than they are bias.

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c009.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … howold.asp

Heres another reply to wikepedia ^^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution (Its a bias site, it doesnt even say its a theory)

Radiometric dating isnt accurate. Heres a link for the horse http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html The fossil records arent complete and dont really show that we evolved. I dont think that animals have basic features in common because of a common ancestor, but rather a common creator.
Heres a link for vestigial organs http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar … organs.asp i could go through all of them but that would be too long, if u got one u want me to see post it.

heres some more links for good luck   http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … llness.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar … efault.asp         http://www.illustramedia.com/movies/TPP … w_256k.mov

And ill end with a quote from an evolutionist
Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation:

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man"

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-04-27 18:44:04)

2006-04-27 19:23:28
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS
Can you think for yourself for once? Can you answer ANY of our arguments?

So: The first link is a 404. Next!

Oh, and by the way

---

The polonium halos: I'll respond in kind. With a link! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/default.htm

---

That 'the earth looks old' guy. Very interesting guide on how to ignore the most basic aspects of geology

So: The continents are eroding too quickly.

That would be excellent evidence if you discount the most important aspect: tectonic activity. The continents ARE eroded - and their sediments deposited on the sea. Sea-floor spreading and other tectonic activity like accretion bring up these sediments - eventually. Also, volcanic activity itself can make sizeable landmasses. Eventually! So a persuasive argumnt: if you live in the 19th century. But we don't. So no.

Not Enough Helium.

Look where helium is on the periodic table. Now THINK of what is special about those. They are all VERY difficult to detect: helium would have quickly risen to the very rim of the atmosphere - where there aren't any instruments to find it.

Fossils

That is, again, assuming Noah's flood took place. This is an excellent way to ensure that the argument will quickly be debunked, as there is NO EVIDENCE of a global flood. Ever.

As for the second argument, think. Please think. The chances of a fossil being found are bad enough. Don't you think there's some outside manipulation? Some guesswork? That is what has happened with MOST creatures - especially ones during the Cambrian 'explosion'.

Quick processes.

Good. Now show me coal that was created VERY recently. Blank?
Now show me that there isn't a single cave in the world with very old stalagmites.
The opals: That is one of the stupid pieces of evidence I've ever seen. In the planet, random chemicals do not come together by chance ALL AROUND THE WORLD. The fact he applied no heat or pressure may have something to do with it, too.
The trees: Is it just me, or did it debunk ITSELF? Do you know how BIG the volcanic eruptions at Yellowstone were? Of course they would all grow at once!

Salt in the ocean.

Doesn't say anything about hydrothermal vents, so that has to be dismissed. An argument MUST use the most recent evidence and most recent accepted theories.

Next!

---

The 'horse'

1. Well, that assumption is correct. However, can you tell me about the rocks? Also, can you tell me what I said about how hard it is to fossilize an animal? Whole sections of the evolutionary chain are blank because those species lived in very fossil-unfriendly areas. Also, as I learnt a few weeks ago, it is not really as simple as 'lowest is oldest'. Take intrusions. Take foliation. Take erosion. Take volcanism. Take living organisms.

2. Wha? I'm not sure what this point is on about. Please expand.

3 - 4. Variations is evidence of NATURAL SELECTION via MUTATION. The fact that slightly different species of the same animal are found across the world is evidence of evolution.

---

I wish to see how vestigal organs can be evidence of a creator. Surely they are an opposite - a relic? Can you give me ONE of those pages, not several?

---

Your 'Darwin' piece has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution in its present state - and therefore is irrelevant.

There probably is 'discrimination' - discrimination against theories with poor or false backing. I've already talked about the movie - do not post it 3 times.

Next!

---

Can you give me a certain piece of evidence that is 'biased' in the wikipedia article? I have not said your sites are 'biased'. I merely state that they are scientifically unsound. Please do likewise.

Last edited by Spark (2006-04-27 19:24:29)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-27 20:44:35
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
You found one guy who doesnt like creationists, thats not evidence that creationists are desperate and are claiming radiometric dating isnt accurate.

----

The proffesional geologist is arguing that there is no good evidence and that they may not even be radioactive, not proving that they arent. Its the amateur who says hes studied them and says theres nothing there.

----

Did you not read what he was saying "Mountain uplift and other ‘recycling’ processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for this." Could u show me where a volcano can make enough land mass to compensate for erosion?

They can detect the helium, there is just not enough. They arent saying they can only find enough for 2 million years, there IS only enough for 2 million years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar … eology.asp

They give u an example of coal forming quickly. Its just showing that it does not take millions of years.
If you say random chemicals all around the world dont come together by "chance" u need to look at what your believing.

There are studies where they study the rate it goes in AND the rate it leaves the ocean.

----

What rocks do u want me to tell u about????? Yeah, do u know how hard it would be to fossilize fish or jelly fish in the ocean? It would take something like a giant flood to fossilize those.


As i said, I dont think that animals have basic features in common because of a common ancestor, but rather a common creator. Im sure there is some stuff on the websites u can find on this.

I didnt say vestigial organs were proof of a creator, i just said that they are not good proof of evolution.

Darwin and the movie were for good luck  

Wikipedia states that evolution did happen, rather than it is a scientific theory.
2006-04-27 21:51:29
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

JaMDuDe wrote:

You found one guy who doesnt like creationists, thats not evidence that creationists are desperate and are claiming radiometric dating isnt accurate.
Oh? I see creationists left, right, centre, up and down who say it isn't

----

The proffesional geologist is [b]arguing that there is no good evidence and that they may not even be radioactive, not proving that they arent. Its the amateur who says hes studied them and says theres nothing there.And the first link doesn't exist. Moving on...

----

Did you not read what he was saying "Mountain uplift and other ‘recycling’ processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for this." Could u show me where a volcano can make enough land mass to compensate for erosion?
Iceland, maybe? There's very little vegetation, and lots of eroision, yet it clearly is growing. How about accretion, huh? Do some research on that.

They can detect the helium, there is just not enough. They arent saying they can only find enough for 2 million years, there IS only enough for 2 million years.
So they've sampled every rock, every cavern, every square inch of the atmosphere? I doubt it. They have done surface measurments and measurments from about 2km. Not the 100km where the helium would have been found.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp

They give u an example of coal forming quickly. Its just showing that it does not take millions of years.
If you say random chemicals all around the world dont come together by "chance" u need to look at what your believing.
If you knew anything about how coal forms, you'd know that they did not do a realistic experiment. It is much easier to release water at 150C WITH NO PRESSURE than at 200C WITH MILLIONS OF TONS OF PRESSURE.

As for the opals, I seriously doubt that the process he detailed happens in nature a lot, that quick.. On another note, if creationists are right, then how do DIAMONDS form? How do metamorphic rocks form? All these need a long time to form.

There are studies where they study the rate it goes in AND the rate it leaves the ocean.
And manage to say nothing about hydrothermal vents and its effects. They only talk about salt being depostied on land - not about salf being filtered through the seafloor.

----

What rocks do u want me to tell u about????? Yeah, do u know how hard it would be to fossilize fish or jelly fish in the ocean? It would take something like a giant flood to fossilize those.
Do you know nothing about fossilization? Do you not know that fossilization depends on the type of rock?

It is actually very easy to fossilize a fish - the ocean is full of sediments which are very easy to imprint. Because that's what a fossil is. An imprint. So, on the calm sea floor, it is very easy for hard bone to make an imprint in the soft, sandy sediments. It would take a colony of fish and an ocean to fossilize them. Not a flood.

As i said, I dont think that animals have basic features in common because of a common ancestor, but rather a common creator. Im sure there is some stuff on the websites u can find on this.
Well... I'm not sure how you could logically come to that conclusion, but that's a theological question, which I'll leave to Skruples.

I didnt say vestigial organs were proof of a creator, i just said that they are not good proof of evolution.
Nor do I. However, they are more of evidence of evolution then evidence against it - and that's what counts.

Wikipedia states that evolution did happen, rather than it is a scientific theory.
Evolution by natural selection IS ongoing and HAS been OBSERVED and DETAILED - in the mutation of strains of bacteria. Why do you think there are so many strains of flu,a dn that we have antibiotic resistance we didn't have before? Evolution, that's why.

Last edited by Spark (2006-04-27 21:53:13)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-28 00:59:50
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7011|PNW

Spark wrote:

That 'the earth looks old' guy. Very interesting guide on how to ignore the most basic aspects of geology

So: The continents are eroding too quickly.

That would be excellent evidence if you discount the most important aspect: tectonic activity. The continents ARE eroded - and their sediments deposited on the sea. Sea-floor spreading and other tectonic activity like accretion bring up these sediments - eventually. Also, volcanic activity itself can make sizeable landmasses. Eventually! So a persuasive argumnt: if you live in the 19th century. But we don't. So no.
If people are to believe that there is an all-powerful deity somewhere in the cosmos, they would have to allow for the fact that said deity could create a planet to, from primitive measurements, look older than it is. However, that being said, I see no reason why an all-powerful God would be in such a hurry, and think it much more likely (assuming for the moment that one is to accept that God does/could exist) that God would just allow creation to, for the most part, follow its own path.

If I want a microwaved burrito, but have the power and knowledge to just point at a plate and order said burrito in existence, I am going to go piece the burrito together myself and chuck it in the microwave oven. Much more fun that way. Likewise, being able to make a planet 'old' and actually doing it would be like having an ability to give yourself a level 99 Diablo II character, and instead choosing not to, for the simple enjoyment of playing.

In my opinion, religous persons attempting to convert others into their faith under some vague mythological duress of otherwise being tossed in a fiery pit for all eternity are in the beginnings of violating the free agency of their fellow man (sorry for the overused phraseology, but it is convenient at 1 in the morning). But whereas atheists (sometimes) loudly slam others' faiths, they also neglect to realize that they are assuming that something does not exist merely on the foundation of there being "no current scientific evidence." True skepticism goes both ways.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-04-28 01:08:45)

2006-04-28 02:09:45
ongelooflijklekker
Member
+13|6891|Uitgeest, The Netherlands
Offcourse they made the bible an attractive book with lots of tell tale stories, just one of the earliest marketing tricks. If for example Harry Potter would be such a dull story JK rowlings wouldnt have made that much money with it.
2006-04-28 03:04:30
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

ongelooflijklekker wrote:

Offcourse they made the bible an attractive book with lots of tell tale stories, just one of the earliest marketing tricks. If for example Harry Potter would be such a dull story JK rowlings wouldnt have made that much money with it.
The only problem, of course, is that you CAN'T make money from it. Is was not 'for sale' until recently - most people couldn't even read it for the majority of the Common Era!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-28 04:06:28
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6867|space command ur anus
the bible as we know it was put together, around the year 100 now there were many books and not just the 4 we know to day there were about 40, im just wondering WHY the f... arent they part of the bible were missing half the story here.
2006-04-28 09:25:04
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
Spark,

Can you show me where the iceland volcanoes are compensating for erosion? I want some science not just your opinion that volcanoes can compensate for land erosion.

They know where the helium is, and how to find it and measure it. Can u show me some evidence against it?

Look around on one of the websites and u can see how some rocks form and stuff, we make diamonds in labs in less than millions of years

So a study where they measure the salt going in and out doesnt measure it going out? There are other studies other than the one on answeringenisis.com

They said they found the horse in clay.
Not just a imprinted fossil, a JELLYFISH or a fish with its tail and fins intact. You should look at the fossils of jelly fish off the coast of australia that prove there was a giant flood of some sort.

Look around answeringenisis or christian answers and im sure u can find an answer to why animals look alike.

Can you give me more details on bacteria becoming resistant, like which kinds are doing it? I can probably find a reasonable answer to that.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-04-28 09:30:19)

2006-04-28 09:29:57
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6883

JaMDuDe wrote:

Look around answeringenisis or christian answers and im sure u can find an answer to why animals look alike.
ran out of ammo, huh?
2006-04-28 09:32:04
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
No i just didnt know u were incapable of looking around a website.
2006-04-28 09:38:23
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6883

JaMDuDe wrote:

No i just didnt know u were incapable of looking around a website.
and your incapable at the process of organizing and examining your OWN opinions
2006-04-28 09:41:00
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
How come all u do is comment on how things are going?
2006-04-28 09:43:58
Rygar
Canucklehead
+69|6886|Nova Scotia
Why hasn't a mod or admin closed this thread?  It's been more or less a circular argument for 33 pages....
2006-04-28 23:46:32
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS
Firstly, can I tell everyone to move along? I'm getting sick of pressing page 36 and it taking me back to page 1.

For the first time ever, I agree with unnamednewbie13. Wow. Strange world, no?

Secondly, I'd like to ask whether Jamdude read the second half of the 'erosion' thing. ACCRETION! DO IT! GO TO WIKIPEDIA NOW! Erosion, logically, precludes tectonic activity at upthrust - all the weight removed means that it can be 'pushed up', so to speak. So that balances that out: and upthrust is a very little-known process, so I won't go into that further.

How can we 'measure' how well a process does something if we don't even know what's beneath the surface? Or do you have divine knowledge of the amount of salt being filtered through the seafloor on every square inch of the globe? Or have you forgotten that the amount of observed sea floor is in the multidecimals?

You should look at the fossils of jelly fish off the coast of australia that prove there was a giant flood of some sort.

The dumbest, most retarded kid (well, maybe not) could point you wrong here. Have you heard of ice ages? You know, how when ice melts, a lot of water (not that much!) gets chucked in the ocean? You know that for most of its history, Australia, Tasmania and PNG were all one landmass (called 'Sahul', I think). I really get annoyed when people don't know this, because I spent 10 weeks of history listening to the dullest teacher in the world yakking on about it.

Also, you are forgetting how Australia was formed. *Drumroll* by MOUNTAIN UPLIFT! That's why the mountains and plains here are so old and so atypical to the rest of the world - its because they werent folded or squished, but pushed up.

Why should I look around a website that I view to hold false and/or poor science for a problem that I have a proven, observed, and accepted explanation for?

Evolution is real.

Your just too blind to see itThankyou.

Spark out.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-29 05:15:14
=|A mere Shadow|=
The Anarchist
+121|6866|Britain and Damn proud of it!
Im a Christadelphian, now i may not have been the most devoted to my 'Faith' i have and am doubting it, i look at the world today with all its suffering and war and wonder if there is a God then why does this happen? , i know that in the bible it predicts the war in israel and so on, but then if i sit and really think, if there is no heaven then what is the point of living? am i to work all my life? just to die? i want there to be a heaven but i just cannot comprehend such a being that is God......
2006-04-29 10:08:52
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t023.html  thats on suffering

spark,

wiki doesnt have an article on accretion. Continent erosion is one of the MANY things that prove we were created. If accretion is what can help create huge masses of land why is it so little known?

Scientists can give an accurate estimate to how much salt is going into the sea and look how much is actually there, its not impossible. Its seems u dont know enough bout the jellyfish so heres a link.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aigks001.html

How could melting snow cover MILLIONS of jellyfish with sediment and mud in less than 24 hours?

I see lots of evidence that we were created. Its all your choice to believe it or not. And i know its physically impossible for us to agree so theres not much point in arguing for too much longer.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-04-29 10:14:27)

2006-04-29 12:30:59
Daysniper
Member
+42|6874

JaMDuDe wrote:

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t023.html  thats on suffering

spark,

wiki doesnt have an article on accretion. Continent erosion is one of the MANY things that prove we were created. If accretion is what can help create huge masses of land why is it so little known?

Scientists can give an accurate estimate to how much salt is going into the sea and look how much is actually there, its not impossible. Its seems u dont know enough bout the jellyfish so heres a link.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aigks001.html

How could melting snow cover MILLIONS of jellyfish with sediment and mud in less than 24 hours?

I see lots of evidence that we were created. Its all your choice to believe it or not. And i know its physically impossible for us to agree so theres not much point in arguing for too much longer.
OK, I appreciate your efforts so you get a +1. But I can't sit silent, either. Once again, can you quote any site that isn't obviously biased? can you?

Last edited by Daysniper (2006-04-29 12:31:32)

2006-04-29 12:58:43
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
All sites are bias one way or the other. Being bias does not change whats off the coast of australia.
2006-04-29 14:20:22
Daysniper
Member
+42|6874
Can you use a website that doesn't have christian, genesis, or answersin...(post bible story here) in the domain name? can you?
2006-04-29 14:29:55
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/links.htm    They have some God stuff but they are mostly scientists. You arent going to find a site that has evidence of creation without saying anything bout God.
2006-04-29 15:19:39
Daysniper
Member
+42|6874

JaMDuDe wrote:

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/links.htm    They have some God stuff but they are mostly scientists. You arent going to find a site that has evidence of creation without saying anything bout God.
case in point

PS--to all others, the link posted by JaMDuDe above quote "would like to acknowledge Answers in Genesis for many of the article type links on this page and at the bottom of other pages."

Last edited by Daysniper (2006-04-29 15:21:53)

2006-04-29 15:57:15
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
What are you trying to prove? That christian websites acknowledge eachother?
2006-04-29 20:19:24
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7011|PNW

JaMDuDe wrote:

No i just didnt know u were incapable of looking around a website.
You need to come up with neutral sources if you are to convince anyone of anything.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 33 34 35 36 37 … 51

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard