The Big Think Creationism debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 12:44 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  
(24-08-2013 09:52 PM)theword Wrote:  Here is a bio one one of the authors that you gave to "prove" evolution:
"I am an evolutionary geneticist interested in various aspects of molecular evolution and population genetics. Genetic basis of local adaptation, genome wide effects of demographic history and natural selection on molecular variation are in my focus. Most of my work has been done with plants: Scots pine, Arabidopsis lyrata and Zea mays (maize and teosinte)."
The chick studies plants and from that you want me to believe that man came from apes, or from a rock, or from the sea.
Why don;t you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

I am ridiculously curious on what your proposal on the diversity of species is. I am insanely interested on what you believe it to be. Is the world six thousand years old or is it billions? If God created all the animals the way they are why can't we find Chihuahua's in the distant past? Dogs are a great example of evolution seeing the radically different species erupt from a single ancestor. Same with Banana's. They came with our intervention. If you know what you are talking about then share it. I am willing to listen but you have to provide something with evidence and if you simply point at the Bible then we have nothing to talk about.

There is a large difference between the two of us. I am freaking willing to admit I am wrong and I will change my views with whats right. I have done that a couple times on this forum and elsewhere already. I want to be right but unfortunately for you I believe it isn't the same. Like friends I know and family I love you don't want to be right but would rather just continue to think you are right regardless of all the information against you. You can admit your bias or not but its the same I only have a handful of Christians I can think who could change and one is probably the closest person in my life but thinking that way is supposedly not Christian. If you think that way then you will never get to the truth no matter how blatant it is.
Christians have no problem with natural selection. Natural selection, however is no where near proof of evolution. Your Chihuahua is a good example. Dog breeders have been mixing and matching dogs to get different varieties for years. What would explain your comment about there being no Chihuahuas in distant past? Did they suddenly evolve?
I do not know how old the earth is. No one was there when it was formed, none of us were there, and there is no scientific measuring device capable of accurately measuring it. The age of the earth is purely speculation by creationists and evolutionists alike.
As far as proof goes, in order for something to be considered scientific, it must be measurable, demonstrable, and observable. Evolution fails in all 3 categories.
As far as changing is concerned, why would I change for an empty theory? At best, atheism and evolution is empty, even if proven true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 09:37 AM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 08:17 AM)theword Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 12:44 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  I am ridiculously curious on what your proposal on the diversity of species is. I am insanely interested on what you believe it to be. Is the world six thousand years old or is it billions? If God created all the animals the way they are why can't we find Chihuahua's in the distant past? Dogs are a great example of evolution seeing the radically different species erupt from a single ancestor. Same with Banana's. They came with our intervention. If you know what you are talking about then share it. I am willing to listen but you have to provide something with evidence and if you simply point at the Bible then we have nothing to talk about.

There is a large difference between the two of us. I am freaking willing to admit I am wrong and I will change my views with whats right. I have done that a couple times on this forum and elsewhere already. I want to be right but unfortunately for you I believe it isn't the same. Like friends I know and family I love you don't want to be right but would rather just continue to think you are right regardless of all the information against you. You can admit your bias or not but its the same I only have a handful of Christians I can think who could change and one is probably the closest person in my life but thinking that way is supposedly not Christian. If you think that way then you will never get to the truth no matter how blatant it is.
Christians have no problem with natural selection. Natural selection, however is no where near proof of evolution. Your Chihuahua is a good example. Dog breeders have been mixing and matching dogs to get different varieties for years. What would explain your comment about there being no Chihuahuas in distant past? Did they suddenly evolve?
I do not know how old the earth is. No one was there when it was formed, none of us were there, and there is no scientific measuring device capable of accurately measuring it. The age of the earth is purely speculation by creationists and evolutionists alike.
As far as proof goes, in order for something to be considered scientific, it must be measurable, demonstrable, and observable. Evolution fails in all 3 categories.
As far as changing is concerned, why would I change for an empty theory? At best, atheism and evolution is empty, even if proven true.

You clearly have never even looked at the evidence for evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-08-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 08:17 AM)theword Wrote:  Christians have no problem with natural selection. Natural selection, however is no where near proof of evolution. Your Chihuahua is a good example. Dog breeders have been mixing and matching dogs to get different varieties for years. What would explain your comment about there being no Chihuahuas in distant past? Did they suddenly evolve?
I do not know how old the earth is. No one was there when it was formed, none of us were there, and there is no scientific measuring device capable of accurately measuring it. The age of the earth is purely speculation by creationists and evolutionists alike.
As far as proof goes, in order for something to be considered scientific, it must be measurable, demonstrable, and observable. Evolution fails in all 3 categories.
As far as changing is concerned, why would I change for an empty theory? At best, atheism and evolution is empty, even if proven true.

You clearly have never even looked at the evidence for evolution.
Another ignorant atheist post. How do you know what I have and have not looked at? You have no proof. It is that simple.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 11:37 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2013 11:40 AM by ridethespiral.)
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
The age of the earth is well established by science give or take a few million years. Here is a fancy chart:

[Image: age_of_the_earth.gif]

Geology, carbon dating, fossil records, ice coring...it all lines up.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 01:17 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 08:06 AM)theword Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 02:21 AM)Stevil Wrote:  What would you consider as proof?
Can you please provide an example so that I can clearly understand what your criteria is?
You didn't include your response to this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 01:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 08:06 AM)theword Wrote:  
You didn't include your response to this.
I did respond.
Scientific proof is something that is considered measurable, demonstrable, and observable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 11:37 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  The age of the earth is well established by science give or take a few million years. Here is a fancy chart:

[Image: age_of_the_earth.gif]

Geology, carbon dating, fossil records, ice coring...it all lines up.
Sorry, you are wrong. No reliable dating can go that far back in time.
This is from wiki...

Radiocarbon dating (or simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating technique that uses the decay of carbon-14 (14 C) to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1]

Fact is that no scientist has the measure to go back millions, not to mention billions of years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 01:23 PM)theword Wrote:  Scientific proof is something that is considered measurable, demonstrable, and observable.
Do you consider DNA to be measurable, demonstrable and observable?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 01:30 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 11:19 AM)theword Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  You clearly have never even looked at the evidence for evolution.
Another ignorant atheist post. How do you know what I have and have not looked at? You have no proof. It is that simple.

I have no proof of what you looked at?

And science doesn't require proof, it requires evidence.

We have evidence of evolution, there is no evidence for any gods.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-08-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 01:27 PM)theword Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 11:37 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  The age of the earth is well established by science give or take a few million years. Here is a fancy chart:

[Image: age_of_the_earth.gif]

Geology, carbon dating, fossil records, ice coring...it all lines up.
Sorry, you are wrong. No reliable dating can go that far back in time.
This is from wiki...

Radiocarbon dating (or simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating technique that uses the decay of carbon-14 (14 C) to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1]

Fact is that no scientist has the measure to go back millions, not to mention billions of years.

There are more kinds of radiometric dating that cover other timescales.

You are just ignorant of them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: