Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Tr0n said:Jesus christ...that sonnva'bitch ate my carrot. Also yea you're right AL about the 90% thingy...but I'm apart of that 10%!
Tr0n said:Awwww yea baby. I'm gonna lay the beatdown on you tonight...in bed. Who wants to join in?
Tr0n said:Short Recoil must have a big one...so big infact everytime he gets an erection everyone else passes out. :O
You should, as it seems everyone else has 'opted out.'Shens said:I will not join in.
I don't follow. I started this thread with the intent of having an informative debate on the given subject. It looks like no-one else wants to.Tr0n said:You can join to campbell.
Well, I've read the other debate threads and don't feel that the Creationist perspective was suffiently and accurately represented. I am trying to amend that.Absinthe said:Well, we basically have a topic on it already and it's been debated on at least a quad-yearly basis.
I would participate, but... meh. And I'd probably get lost in the nitty gritty details of biology.
Oh yes, a misunderstanding of a very ambiguous statement certainly makes worthy of the ultimate gamers insult.Tr0n said:Yea it's already been debated to death. Also shens was talking about the sex thing...noob.
Oh yes, a misunderstanding of a very ambiguous statement certainly makes worthy of the ultimate gamers insult.
Sulkdodds said:the fact that a Quetzalcoatl (I think that's the bird) has almost identical skeleton to some species of dinosaur....
JCampbell said:As for your comment regarding the Bible being the limit of Creation Science's explanatory power, I will offer this analogy: Suppose you observe an event, and you write down what happened from your point of you (ie...aurora borealis). You state that there were bright colors banding across the sky. Now, say someone else comes along and takes your paper and offers a scientific explanation as to why this happened (ie...residual effects from solar flares). This does not invalidate your initial information, as you described within your knowledge. Similarly, the Bible is not meant to explain 'how' as much as it is meant to explain 'what,' just like any historical document. Evidence suggesting that this idea is true does not contradict what was written.
JCampbell said:Obviously, the first account isn't specific enough for today's scientist. So doesn't it make sense to examine the facts to see whether or not they fit within this idea?
JCampbell said:This isn't a re-interpretation of the Bible. This is an interpretation of data available today to see whether or not it fits within the Creationist idea. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that any evidence pointing towards Creationism shouldn't be admissible because it somehow 'changes' the theory.
JCampbell said:That's interesting, because it explains how various information within the fossil record, gene theory and other aspects fit within its model. I don't see how this 'doesn't explain much.'
and ffs, if god did create humans he must have made over 25 (i think thats the number) to avoid mutations caused by inbreeding.....
Adam and eves daughter and son going at it....man that's sick.
Sulkdodds said:Maybe that's why the whole damn species is so ****ed up.
Why would god create people with genetic flaws?short recoil said:and ffs, if god did create humans he must have made over 25 (i think thats the number) to avoid mutations caused by inbreeding.....
Adam and eves daughter and son going at it....man that's sick.
My point was just that creationists have an answer to the problem he proposedLlama said:Yes, but why would / how could any person live to 900?
Am i missing your point?
The evidence that i was shown was tree sap with air bubbles in them from that timeBeerdude26 said:Do they have proof both of those things happened when Adam and Eve lived?
I'll try not to, and realize now the spirit was in jest.Sulkdodds said:Don't take it so seriously.
It's impossible to sum up the argument, but I can answer specific questions regarding it. As to the general theory, it goes like this:Basically, this is what I don't understand: what is the reason for arguing so strongly against the theory of evolution? And what is the evidence for Creationism, apart from the Bible? I mean, sum up the argument. I want to hear it from you. I'm not a scientist and nowhere near an expert on this subject, but reasons for believing the theory of evolution are:
You're right. Life has diversified. Obviously, this is microevolution as you are describing it. It does not, however, allow for the spontaneous arising of new species via 'random' mutations. It's not possible. (well to be fair, it technically is possible, but even giving the generous age of the universe to be 16 billion years, there still hasn't been enough time)- life exists in many forms now, but it did not in the past. Life has changed and it has diversified (what's the creationist argument? As far as I know, Genesis never claimed God might keep on creating new animals...)
While this may fit inside the evolutionary framework, it does not mean it fits exclusively to it. Consider the possibility of a global flood. Would the rapid burial of ecological zones account for the "layers" of the fossil record? I think it does. This apparent 'order' that you speak of where simpler organisms are in older rocks etc...is also significantly flawed. The amount of anomolies that have been "adjusted" and "re-dated" to fit within the evolutionary framework is very large....the oldest fossil-bearing rocks display very few types of organisms with very simple structure...
In a word, no. And the lack of any transitional forms further proves my point.- So there's variation between closely related species. Might not this variation continue until it's a new species?
Habitat adaptation. While they may have different characteristics, they still are the same animal. And many evolutionists don't believe that the platypus evolved from a common ancestor, so it is actually an anomole.- Australia and the new world. Completely seperated, animals have evolved entirely different characteristics; the platypus being a striking example.
Here in an interesting article on the dinosaur/bird ancestral link:- And as for missing links...I'm not a paleontologist. But archteopteryx...and the fact that many dinosaurs have extremely bird-like structures; the fact that a Quetzalcoatl (I think that's the bird) has almost identical skeleton to some species of dinosaur....
It is essentially as stated above. But how it accounts for fossils, genetic similarities between species, and other topics is mainly what I'm trying to bring up in this thread.Like I said, I'm not an expert. I'm sure you can find counter-arguments to these. But what exactly is the creationist argument? What's it based on, apart from saying that evolution is wrong? Note that if I must I will trawl through that website but can't you sum it up?
I will be honest. It is pretty much impossible to separate Creationism from the Bible. The ideal method would be do study the behaviour of the universe, and determine if it indeeds points towards a Creator. This can be done in a number of ways, but it would be fruitless to mention every one without a specific inquiry on your part. The fact that the Bible documents creation as a 6 day even does not mean that we need to reinterpret the Bible in order to compare it to the available evidence. I'm assuming that you are saying that it is scientifically and logically improbable because it contradicts what you've been taught about evolution and the big bang? Correct me if I'm wrong.CptStern said:I see what you're saying and that would be true if it were anything but the bible and creationism ...that's like saying you interpret the bible to fit a specific scientific theory to explain something that is both locically and physically impossible. Maybe it's because I was born catholic but to me the bible says what it says .."god said "let there be light" means to me: god made sun and the stars because that's always been the interpretation
You're right. Look at it this way. If a witness gives a testimony and a court, how would one determine if what they were saying was true. Obviously, lie detectors are out of the question because it's historical. So what we do is go by what exists today, and see if this eyewitness account is plausible. I hope that makes sense....but it's the only account ..it's not like god made a "bible companion" or "creation supplemental vol 1" ..the bible says what it says.
Impossible? According to what evolution and radiocarbon dating predict? As for your comment about day, I agree completely. There were many words that could have been used instead but the original Hebrew translation was a word that specifically referred to a 'day' as we know it today.it is a re-interpretation ..according to some biblical scholars the bible puts the earth age at about 10,000 years ...even the most naive of laymen would tell you that's impossible. The bible says that god created the universe and on the 6th day he rested despite being completely illogical. Many creationists say "well how do you how long a day was?" You cant reintrepret the bible to say that the word "day" actually meant thousands of years or they would have used a different word
Hardly. It stated why there is significantly lesser content readily available for Creation as there is for Evolution.I'm sorry but it really doesnt say anything:
...<paragraphs from trueorigins>...
3 paragraphs that basically says
"we know what creationism is but we cant give you a simple sypnosis so here's a list of books to read"
If that doesn't explain how creationists feel towards:here's where it explains creationism:
...<trueorigins creation theory table>...
what the hell is that? maybe it's because I'm not an expert/scientist/theologian but that's not an explanation
jverne said:so when was the bible written? 4000 BC? we have evidence that people lived during the last iceage (10000 BC) and even before! there were no books then, so how could someone in 4000 BC write how life was before 4000 BC?!? did god tell him, or adams great grand grand ........... son!? the bible was written by some guy!
damn, explaining creationism is too stupid...just like the people who belive in it!
the bible can't explain anything before it was written, darwins theory can!
i have been observing for the last few years and found that every year a new type of bug comes around but the next year it's gone and a new type comes!
example: 3 years ago there was a white cockroach like bug almost everywhere, after winter it was totaly gone and a new green like mosquito came and it's still here for 2 years, so i guess it survived the test! altough the ordinary mosquitos are still here which prove that they are well adapt!
and besides why do discuss only christian creationism...there's the jewis and hindui...muslim! there's only one darwins theory! another point which proves that religion is crap...there are just too many of them...which one is true?!
oh man!! this is just too stupid to discuss!!
Do you know why it is illegal for close relatives to marry? It's because of genetic defects. People with similar DNA will tend to have similar defects, so the chance of one being carried over if two people in the same family had sex is very likely. However, if two people from very different genetic "trees" breed, the chance of the two errors "canceling" each other out is far greater. Obviously, inbreeding wouldn't have been a problem if we were created perfect (as well as soon after), as no genetic defects would have existed (or not enough to be as much of a threat as they are today).short recoil said:I was not created by a god, i was created by my parents.
Wether or not a god created life he did not create humans, no matter what the bible says.
and ffs, if god did create humans he must have made over 25 (i think thats the number) to avoid mutations caused by inbreeding.....
Adam and eves daughter and son going at it....man that's sick.
It's a load of tripe, give it a rest and accept that it is not any more right than evolution is.
You're referring to the march around the city right? Honestly, I don't possess the explanation you require (you flatter me though). I will do some research though, and ask my dad, who's a pastor. So I'll get back to you on that. In the meantime, look it up on the web. There are plenty of sites devoted to explaining the Bible. Try and find a more reputable one.Ikerous said:The evidence that i was shown was tree sap with air bubbles in them from that time
The air bubbles displayed both qualities
Hey Campbell, you seem fairly well versed in the bible, could you answer a question i've had for a long time?
Can you explain why God would have commanded the slaughtering of infants (And everyone else obviously) at Jericho?
(You have no idea how long this question has plagued me, lol)
So essentially, your method of proving your argument is to disprove its antithesis. Nice.JCampbell said:<snip>
The internet was the first place i tried to look for an answerJCampbell said:You're referring to the march around the city right? Honestly, I don't possess the explanation you require (you flatter me though). I will do some research though, and ask my dad, who's a pastor. So I'll get back to you on that. In the meantime, look it up on the web. There are plenty of sites devoted to explaining the Bible. Try and find a more reputable one.
Well, since you "snipped" whatever evidence you have to support this accusation you have made against me, I say you're wrong. I never did say that, although I would be interested to know what could be misunderstood as that.Stigmata said:So essentially, your method of proving your argument is to disprove its antithesis. Nice.
Think about it. I have the exact same evidence as you. But since you want direct proof that could point towards a young earth, I would say that these 10:The reason you're not getting much support on the issue is that you're not providing any evidence that directly proves the theory (read: hypothesis) of Creationism. Everything you've mentioned so far to try and disprove the theory of Evolution is based on:
a) misinformation
b) completely circumstantial "evidence"
c) what seems to be a fairly huge lack of understanding of the evolutionary theory.
I never said this.If you want to prove something, you cannot assume that there are only two solutions to a given problem. Saying the theory of Evolution is wrong does NOT, under ANY circumstances prove the theory of Creationism.
A perfect example of how someone more qualified can bring light to a complicated and misunderstood situation. For most of my claims (not all, as my writing would be a mess), I have provided links by qualified scientists or articles peer-reviewed by qualified scientists to support them.Think of how you would solve the problem of, say, fixing your car engine. You might think to yourself "Hey, maybe the spark plugs need to be replaced." And along comes your friend, let's call him Bob. Bob, though he may be no more of an expert on the subject than you, suggests that your gas tank is empty.
You're still going on the assumption that I think that because evolution is wrong, creation must be right. Keep in mind, however, that these are the most dominant theories and as such are the subject of many debates.Now, to decide which one of you is right, what would you do? To make this an ideal metaphor, I'll tell you what you WOULDN'T do:
Fill the gas tank, find the engine still doesn't work, and declare that faulty spark plugs are to blame.
Again, I never said this.That's just faulty logic. Obviously, there's more than two solutions to the problem, so assuming that yours is right because someone else's is wrong is, well... It's just plain stupid. Just like with the Evolution/Creationism debate: Just because one is "wrong" doesn't make the other right.
Thanks, but you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claim, other than trying to undermind mine by accusing me of saying it's the only other option, so it has to be true.And I'll point out right now that I believe evolution is, right now, a far more accurate deduction than Creationism is, based on the evidence given.