Creation: yea or nay?

Well, you get point's for creativity at least.

 

Pizza chef is so my new insult.

 

Funny that nobody EVER answers my question. Just reply with another question that you think I can't answer. This one, I can't, at least not definitively the way you want it. I can't point somewhere and say "God's over there." But supposedly you can point towards the half-fish-half-amphibian and say "the missing link's over there." So why don't you, motherfucker?
Did you ever consider the fact that I admitted that I believe in God and Creation on the basis of faith (as well as insane things I've seen)? That means I don't have to scientifically prove anything. BUT, since the Evolutionism is apparently a science, you should be able to prove that. But you can't.

I'll call evolution a religion all I want. Whatever happened to free speech, you pretentious, loose-rectumed, cocksmoking, dog-humping, teary-eyed, bitch-titted son of a whip-cracking Imperialist Colonist?

 

My insult was better, and everyone knows it.

You stated exactly my point.

What about a vaccine for HIV? Supposedly it could be done, but just because it hasn't been discovered yet does not mean it won't. That doesn't mean we should rely on faith healing, and the notion that the people who contract it were smited(smitten?) with it by god.

There is history laid out before us in fossils, but just because it hasn't all survived the millions of years of the earth's existence doesn't mean we won't one day uncover it. However, there is no convincing or impartial witness to the existence of god.

 

You know, you just changed the topic again, you. Fossils? HIV? What the hell are you talkin about? Try answering the question, you dick eatin piece ah' shit.

That tops the charts on the childish item of the day.

 

Matah, your're missed something. This topic is about creationism, aswell as political views and evolution, fossils are a large part of evolution, and I know I referred to fossils a few posts ago. Please when you post in a topic atleast read the topic sentence and the last few posts

You obviously have no idea of the philosophy of science.

Evolution only has missing links, gaps if you will, whereas religion has actual holes. Adam and Eve? I would hazard a guess that that part of the bible isn't part of your theory of creationism. Creationism ignores radiometric dating of remaisn and layers in the Earth's soil which we can date. As I stated before certain remains exist at one point but don't in another or an afterwards to date and some only appear much later. So without ignoring this, which I sincerely hope no one educated does, you have to alter the theory of creationism away from the Bible anyway to say that God created organisms in batches etc. And if you do that then your already degrading the Bible as a whole. A few more steps and its sacreligious.

 

I was sort of trying to make a point about the usefulness of the process of science as opposed to blind faith.

Thanks for pointing out the childishness, as if that wasn't the point of the insult comment to begin with.

 

Ooooh, THAT'S what you're doing! I never would have known...

 

Well if you're going to question my posts, why act surprised when I explain them?

I was trying to explain that scientists ask answerable questions, while religion asserts faith through circular arguments, and faulty logic.

 

You shouldn't have hazarded it. I believe the bible one hundred percent. You can call me ignorant all you want. It'll make me laugh.

Radiometric dating is unreliable. You can't date anything recent (that we can actually set a proven date to) with that method, therefore the dating system is arbitrary, just like the circular "layer" dating system: a sedimentery layer is dated by the fossils that appear in it...which are dated by the layer it is found in...which is dated by the fossils that appear in it...you get the idea.

No, I don't have to alter the theory of creationism at all. The Biblical account makes a hell of a lot of sense. Think about this: the eruption of Mount Saint Helens (didn't I already say this? like talking to a bunch of fucking walls here) created the exact same type of sedimentary layering that was supposed to have been formed over billions of years. Isn't it plausible that a worldwide flood could do the same? And even the fact that many large, tropical animals are now extinct is easily explained by the Bible. In the account of the Flood, it describes that there was an "envelope" of water around the earth, like a layer of vapor. This was opened up and rained down on the earth during the Flood, as well as most of the groundwater ("and the fountains of the deep were broken up"). Once the waters receded, the climate would have changed drastically because of the reduction of the greenhouse effect caused by the layer of water vapor. Therefore, many species of animals died that could not adapt to the new, colder climate and less varied vegetation. And the dissapearence of the vapor layer exposed humans directly to the deadly UV rays of the sun, drastically shortening the average lifespan.
Other evidence of the flood: trilobite and other marine fossils found on mountain tops, massive groupings of fossilized animals (most large fossil finds are explained by a "random serious flood," how about one that covered the whole earth?) and even the Ice Age. Glaciation due to massive climactic and atmospheric change, as well as a dramatic shift in the earth's water tables.

 

Mountain tops weren't necessarily always mountain tops. All that proves is how long ago trilobites existed.

Also...
seems pretty reliable to me...

Though I am sad to say its not the first web page I found when I googled Radiometric Dating... It was this... http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Enjoy. I'm really done caring.

 

My quote button won't work so bear with me please.

1)
Okay maybe I shouldn't have hazarded that and I won't call you ignorant because I don't know the Bible well enough to quote it etc. But then why aren't you eating like a Jew and sacrificing crap if you believe in the Bible, including the Old Testament 100%?

Also, if you don't allow for evolution Adam and Eve give us all of four sex chromosomes, 3 X's and only 1 Y to work with and 84 autosomes. We know that a lot more sex chromosomes exist than this. Natural radiation doesn't play large enough a part. We should all be a lot more similar if this was the case.

2)
Radio carbon dating is accurate to 7000 years, which has no real impact on the whole thing of the Earth being 64 million years old. It is still accurate enough regardless of soil layers. It is not arbitrary, therefore.

3)
As I stated again (and as you stated 'like talking to a bunch of fucking walls) it does not explain why humans remains do not appear while dinosaurs are around, does it. Yes species die out but they do not fucking appear and we can carbon date them accurately enough to say there were no definite human remains up until a few thousand years ago.

I don't understand your reference to Saint Helen's eruption (sorry). So what if it created "sediment". How can any permanent sediment form over billions of years when the surface is constantly changing, with tectonic movement and weather changes? I know I must be missing something so please explain this point. You need to define sediment for me as well, are you talking about an ash layer of nutrients and dry lava rock?

4) Your point on the flood of the world
Firstly I would explain (and this makes sense too) the extinction of tropical animals differently. We all know that the weather at the equator very...tropical nowadays. OK we've established the obvious. Now coming out of an ice age all the animals at the equator would have been fucked if they didn't adapt now wouldn't they. Takes less blind faith then the whole Noah's Ark thing.

The Bible says the Lord flooded the Earth not that he covered it in vapour. Vapour is gaseous, water is a liquid. Gases have different properties to liquids. Water doesn't settle like vapour.

Another flaw is you say the waters receded. Where does the water recede to? If it evaporated then it would fall back to Earth again and we'd be perpetually flooded so God must have created more water, which means he didn't create the world in 7 days. This highlights the fact that the Bible is inevitably out of date and primitive.

Why would the climate have changed drastically? God wouldn't want that would he; he made the world the way he wanted didn’t he? And now you're reading between the lines and twisting the Bible. I'm sure it never mentions the green house effect or vapours or UV rays.

You say that once the vapours receded the climate would have changed. No it would have reverted back to the way it was if they did just disappear.

You say the disappearance of vapour (atmosphere) would allow more UV to cause genetic variety and shorten life spans. Well if there had been that much vapour, assuming God didn't regulate the Sun it would have flooded from the start. It's not sustainable, that much water with such a hot temperature needed to keep it gaseous.

5)
UV causes genetic mutation on a small level but it is generally not inherited so you're extending the Bible again

6) Your last paragraph.
Tectonic movement, tectonic movement! How are mountains formed? It could easily happen that some plates which were awhile ago under the ocean hit each other make mountains and move fossils so that point is very moot. You did learn this didn't you?

Next sentence: No flood is random, even one made by God. Aside from that a steady rain and rising of water level won't do that much for the actual shape of the ground. The reason (and I suspect you didn't look into this) for the flood seeming to cause mass groupings of fossils is that some animals die and through a lot of rushing water, the bodies all get washed down to a certain point, where they fossilise. Ok, but SO WHAT if there was one big flood, a lot of other ones, which we know occur regularly would explain this too. Moot point.

On your last sentence all I have to say is you really need to go do some research on the causes of the ice age. Also Earth does not have to change its amounts of water for there to be an ice age mmkay?

 

Are you forgetting the New Testament? In Acts 10:9-16, Peter is on the roof of a house and he sees a vision of all the unclean animals being lowered down in front of him on a sheet, and a voice said, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." This meant that the "unclean" animals were now okay to consume. And even more importantly, when Jesus died on the cross that was the ultimate and final sacrifice, nullifying the need to make any more.

I confess I'm not sure what you're talking about here, as far as the "other sex chromosomes." And humans are all almost genetically identical, with almost no variation between races. How does that makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint? Shouldn't there be several different species of human-like animals? Like wolves, dholes and Cape dogs? It makes almost no evolutionary sense for only one species with little genetic variation to evolve. Like I've said before, I know what I'm talking about, I've studied evolution long and hard, and I just can't believe it.

No, that means it is arbitrary. Nobody argues that the earth is younger than 6000-7000 years or so (10,000 might be more correct), so where does radio carbon dating fit into the discussion if it can't prove millions of years? Like I said, the strata layer test is the only one that supposedly proves millions of years, and it can't be trusted due to the aforementioned circular dating method. What do you have to say about that? You didn't answer it in this post.

Yeah, you're right on that last point. Probably because we haven't been around for more than a few (like 10) thousand years. But then again, neither have the dinosaurs. The point is, just because the remains haven't been found buried together doesn't mean much. And who's to say they haven't? I wouldn't be at all surprised if they have been found and covered up, just like the existance of live dinosaurs in Africa. Yes, I did say live dinosaurs. Look up "mokele-mbembe" on dogpile. Yeah, I know it's not definitive, but if you don't believe anyway (like I do) it makes you think. Something that is definitive is a photo of a plesiosaur hauled up by a Japanese fishing trawler.




What does that look like to you?
I know, they don't have the body anymore, so it can't be proven, but damn! Look at it!

Mount Saint Helens erupted in March 1980, spewing debris all around the mountain and laying down thick layers of it. When these layers were exacavated, they had the exact same appearance as the layers of sediment supposedly caused by millions of years of change.

It's pretty silly that you keep saying "blind faith" when it's obvious that I've researched all sides of the argument. So your explanation is just as good. I was just saying that the flood theory is also quite plausable.

What are you talking about? I said that there was a layer of water vapor (a canopy) around the earth's atmosphere before the flood, not that God flooded the world with water vapor.

[/quote]Another flaw is you say the waters receded. Where does the water recede to? If it evaporated then it would fall back to Earth again and we'd be perpetually flooded so God must have created more water, which means he didn't create the world in 7 days. This highlights the fact that the Bible is inevitably out of date and primitive.[/quote]
The water was originally in the vapor canopy around the earth. After the forty days and forty nights the water began to drain back into the earth, and the rest was frozen into the polar ice caps (now formed because of the climactic change due to the dissapearence of the vapor canopy). So why would He have to create more water?

I don't see how I'm twisting anything. Reading between the lines, yes, but that doesn't change anything about the biblical account.

You still have no understanding of what I was talking about. The vapors were in a canopy around the earth.
"Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. " (Genesis 1:7, NKJV)
The waters above the firmament are the vapor canopy.
"And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth. In the six hundreth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:10, NKJV)
Thus, the vapor canopy (basically a very thick constant cloud layer) began to produce rain, which over the course of the flood ultimately emptied it completely. Therefore, the canopy did not form again after the flood.

Water stays gaseous up in the atmosphere all the time. It's cold up there.

You're extrapolating something I never said.

Yes, but only over millions of years could tectonic movement bring mountains up out of the depths of the sea. And there is no other evidence of the earth being millions of years old, so the flood is a much more logical explanation.

If you want to see it that way, I won't argue it.

What do you mean "change it's amount of water?" I never said that. It makes sense that after the climactic changes, the water would have frozen and formed into glaciers (and the aforementioned polar ice caps). The poles were once just as warm as the rest of the earth, and the only way this would be possible is through a very strong greenhouse effect caused by a canopy of vapor around the earth. Why do you think there are dinosaur fossils in Antarctica? Then again, I bet you didn't know there were.

Easily explanable. When people began spreading out throughout the earth, they obviously began to adapt to the different environments, resulting in different physical features. Why do you think Africans have dark skin? Because those with more melanin were more likely to survive in the harsh sun. It's foolish to say that so many races shouldn't be able to form in such a short time. Look at the domestic dog. We have hundreds of varieties, but all are the same species. These varieties were created over an even shorter period of time, sometimes as little as 20 years (American Bulldog, for example). If humans evolved, why didn't some of us evolve at different rates than others? Like I've said, it makes no sense for there to be only one species of sentient primate.

 

It is generally thought to be a badly decomposed shark. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm

Which you would know if you spent more time reading scientific sources rather than creationist conspiracy nutbaskets like gennet.org.

Honestly it's like talking to a brick wall, as you say.

 

Yeah, I was just going to say, sigurd, you must be out of you're F'ing mind if you think there are still dinosaurs alive in Africa etc. That really looks nothing like a coherent plesiousaur skeleton.

don't get tangled in the gennet!

 

[/quote]

No, I'm not forgetting, I never knew this But anyway, how is dying for the good of other people the ultimate sacrifice anyway (side issue I know). Plenty of other people have done the same and in more painful ways.

The fact that our genes are so similar and we are so different is a testament to how much difference a minor change in our genetic code makes. Which is part of the theories of natural selection and evolution. Why should there be species of human like animals if they went down different evolutionary paths at a very early time. It's possible but you do need to assume that the Earth has been around long enough. In Europe they believe they have narrowed down the gene pool to 7 X chromosomes, more then the three given by Adam and Eve and the research has allowed for similarity through evolution (the X chromosomes are significantly different)

It's a feasible possibility if the selective pressure that caused us to evolve was only in one area. Chimps are considered sentient as well. They have a primitive language to boot.

 

I actually didn't read anything on that site. I've seen that photo before and I just dogpiled it and that was what came up. At first glance I thought it was a site trying to prove that the carcass was something else, which is why I didn't bother linking to it.

Pretty dumb considering you still haven't shown me the missing links.

You must be incredibly narrow-minded to not even consider something outside your realm of experience that goes against your rabidly held blind faith. Why don't you try fucking researching the other side for once (like I have) instead of simply blowing it all off as "dat faith crap dat makes me week."
It actually looks more like a plesiousaur than anything else. It looks nothing like a fucking shark. Since when do sharks have long necks?

I like how you guys always counter my most difficult to defend arguments, that I don't even try very hard on half the time. Why don't you respond to any of the solid points I've made, fool?

I'll respond to the rest of your post presently, Sea Dog (because you actually debate me in an intelligent way, rather than just throwing out childish insults), but at this point I am too tired and have too much work, so I'll say this first for you to think about: the carcass pulled up by the Japanese fishermen was in 1977, but the year is a moot point. They were fishermen that pulled the thing up, not scientists, and one of them happened take photographs as a hobby, thought it was interesting, and snapped a few shots before they threw it back. Understand that they didn't know what they were looking at, and they weren't going to bring a massive corpse onto the ship that would spoil the fish.

 

:| Aren't you the one who rejects the legitimacy of horse fossils?