Does this website prove Creationism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2011, 09:23 PM
 
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
That site might prove creationism, but this site proves that the earth is a cube and not spherical and that there four 24 hour days going on at the sane time. Time Cube
Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2011, 01:01 PM
 
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(12-07-2011 10:45 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
Quote:Imagine putting the pieces of a million fine wrist watches in a paper bag (a big bag). Now shake this bag for 6 billion years and expect the watches to be running and on perfect time when you are finished. Preposterous, isn't it?

Like every Pro-Creationist they know nothing of science or what others believe. They assert a conclusion and try to find facts for it.(and do it poorly) Paranoid uneducated idiots best describes them.

Oh, and like every other theist they argue points that would only be in favor of deism and claim it proves their theist God exist.

They no nothing of science!They no nothing of science!They no nothing of science!They no nothing of science!They no nothing of science!They no nothing of science!
That sounds like a broken record to me. Honestly why say this about hat explanation I mean if there is an explosion in a brick factory do you expect an office building with individual rooms set for each worker to come out even if there are 2,000,000,000,000 of them these such explosions? Of course not then people speak of laws of nature and science but where did these laws come from?! It sounds like logic to me.:idea:What if there right! Has that ever occurred to you?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ search in any of your supposed proof that creation cannot happen such as Carbon 14 dating method and more.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes MrLittleLawyer's post
17-08-2011, 01:49 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(17-08-2011 01:01 PM)MrLittleLawyer Wrote:  They no nothing of science!They no nothing of science!They no nothing of science!They no nothing of science!They no nothing of science!They no nothing of science!
That sounds like a broken record to me.

God did it! God did it! God did it! God did it! God did it! God did it! God did it! God did it!

Sound familiar?

Why won't God heal amputees?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2011, 02:23 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
Mr. Little Lawyer
First off the phrase would be "they KNOW nothing of science."

Give me a reason why the laws of nature have to have come from someone or something. We know they exist and that we can demonstrate them. They are measurable and quantifiable. Could a universe exist without them? No. Could a universe exist if the laws were different? Yes. The fact that they exist and that they are what they are is little more than coincidence and chance.

As for the last line of your post I do not understand. Am I supposed to just pick any random scientific subject and see what this site says about it? I don't what connection you are trying to make with Carbon-14 dating either. Carbon-14 dating is not used to estimate the age of the Earth. At best it is only useful for a few ten thousand years. Geochemists and Thermochronologists use Uranium-Thorium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, Samarium-Neodymium and numerous others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) to estimate the age of the Earth to around 4.56 Billion years old. A committee known as RATE has attempted to explain these techniques in ways that reconcile their ages to be no more than 10,000 years but have provided NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. They have NEVER published in peer-reviewed science journals. The point of a scientific hypothesis is that it is testable, falsifiable and independently reproducible. Radiometric dating is testable and they try to make predictions base on it but their claims about how it "speeds up" are not falsifiable because they invoke either a supernatural cause (god) or the very natural laws themselves to break down during these times of "increased" decay. And the independently reproducible portion is where peer-reviewed science comes in. Real science is available to the scientific community at large, real scientists make their data publicly available to be independently tested by other real scientists and real science does not make claims that invoke supernature because supernature itself has never been demonstrated to be plausible.

So, if you have any specific lines of evidence that support creation please provide them. I have radiometric dating, fission tracks, fossils, sedimentary rocks, DNA, astronomical observations, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Evolution and each field of physical science (Astronomy, Biology, Physics, Chemistry and Geology) providing evidence to support a 4.56 Ga (giga annum meaning billion years) old Earth. We have scientists who have put their work on the table to be independently tested by the generations of scientists after them. In some cases their hypotheses and theories remain unchanged and in some cases (like Gravity and Evolution) we have learned more and improved those theories through rigorous testing and technological improvements. These scientists include Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Gould, Mayr, Mendel, Lyell, Steno, Kelvin, Hutton, Margulis and many others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_geologists and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biologists and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemists and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomers).

The burden of proof about God, creation and a young Earth is on the person(s) making the claim. Show me the testable, falsifiable, independently reproducible evidence of that position. I have shown you mine.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
17-08-2011, 05:43 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(17-08-2011 01:01 PM)MrLittleLawyer Wrote:  Honestly why say this about hat explanation I mean if there is an explosion in a brick factory do you expect an office building with individual rooms set for each worker to come out even if there are 2,000,000,000,000 of them these such explosions?

Oh come on, airplane parts in a tornado again? Look at it this way: Most animals that reach reproduction age have more than 2 babies. Some have up to 10 or even 100. My question is very simple: why doesn't the population of these animals grow exponentially and which of these babies are most likely to reach reproduction age?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 04:51 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
Excuse me, may I provide the same link as before? Maybe somebody missed it and I think it shows how you are all wrong and you should read the Bible more...
Smile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzF5aQ8X-hA

There, she (ex-he) is a professor in school, there is your proof and there is some real professor explaining everything, so that even you scientists can understand... Go to church!

Smile

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 11:02 AM
 
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
Thanks for all the replies, I did read them all. I definitely learnt something new from this thread. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2011, 06:36 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(19-07-2011 02:34 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(19-07-2011 12:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  I noted BC used the terms "macro evolution" and "micro evolution". I've heard these phrases used a lot, usually by creationists who accept one and deny the other. That got me thinking: is there any real difference between the two? As I understand it, evolution is evolution. Creationists claim that one species can't turn into another but that changes within a species can obviously occur because we can see it. But, isn't this just really an issue of timing? Obviously a tree is not turning into a dog but no one has ever claimed that to be the case. The claim is that there is a common ancestor between the tree and the dog and, at some point, there was a divergence. The divergence at the time was a micro-evolution within a species. Over millions of years as the now two species continued to evolve on separate paths did one turn into a tree and one turn into a dog. But, they did this through the same process that creationists, and I guess Buddy Christ, call "micro evolution".

Maybe I'm wrong here but I just can't seem to wrap my head around the idea of degrees of natural selection. As I see it, the difference between macro and micro evolution is just the amount of time you've got to stand around and watch it happen.

I addressed them as separate terms because creationists insist on separating them and claiming one is possible and one is not.

I'm too jacked up on NyQuil to form coherent sentences, so here are some pics that have been posted before.

[Image: the+difference+between+micro+and+macro+evolution.jpg]


[Image: macro-vs-microevolution.jpg]

That is awesome! Too clever, I wish I'd seen that back when I was a creationist. (De-conversion happened in latter years of college).

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: