PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evilution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no i am not a young earth creationist. i am also not an evolutionist. i dont believe that i possess enough scientific knowledge to make a serious argument.

it is clearly impossible for the earth to have been created 6000 years ago. on the other hand, i find it very hard to believe that it was created billions of years ago. can anyone tell me if there is a scientific theory out there that has something in between? i would like to know more about it if there is.

sarah and alex, many times on this creation/evolution debate, i am playing the devils advocate. like i said, i cant really make a sound argument until i learn more about the subject. as for now, i'm just some rebellious, bleeding-heart liberal, idealistic, teenager who will not take for granted anything that is told to him. i'm questioning both evolution and creation.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:19 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm back!
Sorry I haven't replied to accusations in a while!  I’m going to try to deal with pretty much all of them, so this post might be a little long!  If you don’t want to read that much, skip down to the last part!

you wanna know why you are too stubborn to accept a younger earth that is less than 100,000 years old? because if it is indeed less than 100,000 years old then that means there would be no time for evolution and evolution would be impossible. you are scared that evolution could be disproved. because evolution is the only way that atheists believe the world came into being. if evolution is disproved, then that means that the world was created by some divine force (not necessarily the Christian creation story, but it could be). you are too afraid to admit this so you hang on to your close-minded and ignorant views and refuse to accept new information that is being discovered in science today.


the only reason why scientists say our earth is billions of years old is because evolution requires billions of years. there is no evidence that the earth is billions of years old.


Good posts, Fallingup!  


"Ape-men"!

Australopithecus: A full-fledged ape.  Richard Leakey (Name sound familiar?) dropped australopithecus from his evolutionary charts.  As far as I know, public school textbook writers have yet to do so.  (I could be mistaken on that one though)

Homo Erectus: Based on two "finds"; "Peking Man" and "Java Man".  I'll deal with both.

Peking Man: A rather large collection of monkey-like skulls.  Unfortunately, they all seem to have disappeared during WWII, but that doesn't mean that they aren't evidence.  Take note of a few things about "Peking Man" that your textbooks "forgot" to mention:

1. Other than six full (or nearly so) skeletons, (I'll get to those in a minute) they found nothing but skulls.

2. About those skulls; they were all bashed in at the base.  People in this region used to (some say still do) eat monkeys.  You can't eat monkey meat, however, so they cut off the heads, boiled them, bashed in the base of the skull, and ate the brains.  These skull fragments are likely the leftovers of such a meal.

3. At that same site, they found evidence of a fire.  A rather warm fire.  In fact, the stones around the several foot deep fire pit were fused together!  Scientists think that the fire was used in processing limestone, which requires a little more heat than your average marshmallow-burning bonfire!

4. Back to those skeletons: they were fully human, which is why you don't hear about them from evolutionists.

Java Man: An ape-like skullcap and a human leg bone that was found fifty feet away.  Eugene Dubois, the discoverer, later admitted that "Java Man" was a fake.

So much for homo erectus.

Homo Habilis: A cross between australopithecus and homo erectus.


Just because it's my favorite so-called "ape-man", I'd like to bring up "Nebraska Man".

"Nebraska Man" was discovered in 1922.  Evolutionists went crazy, and drawings of the latest "missing link" showed up all over the place.  "Nebraska Man" was even used as evidence in the 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial".  Of course, this discovery was a big thing to the public, who thought that finally, a true ape-man had been discovered, proving that humans did indeed evolve.

Now let's look at the evidence.  Certainly, for the way evolutionists treated "Nebraska Man", you would think that they had found a skeleton that was 90% complete!  Um, not exactly.  Actually, "Nebraska Man" consisted of no more than a single tooth- and quite a bit of imagination of course!  How can you get a whole man from a single tooth?  Before you go off talking about how scientists have superhuman capabilities that we common rabble would know nothing about that allows them to reconstruct a whole skeleton from a tooth, allow me to inform you that in 1927, they discovered that the tooth actually belonged to an extinct pig!  Oops!  (The cherry on top: some time later, they discovered that the pig wasn't even extinct!)


The Mississippi Delta: You're right, Porky Pine, we don't know that the delta has been forming since the beginning.  Evolutionists haven't been able to come up with any explanation (that I know of) about how these things started, but I can.  Ever heard of “Noah’s Flood”?  It explains a lot more than just river deltas!  It changed the whole face of the earth-literally!  It provides a reasonable explanation for why river deltas started a few thousand years ago.  Evolution has no explanation for why deltas started to form; the Bible does.


Cool-Hand-Dave, you said “well david, like you, i have formed my own opinions and i have expressed them in this forum until i am worn from it.  you want my beliefs look on the earlier pages of this debate.  the fact is, i can't prove the earth's age, whether we evolved or not, or anything else.  and frankly, i don't care.  i don't think those matters affect me all that much. sure, they led to the here and now, but it is the here and now, not the then and there.  so basically, i'm concerned with the here and now at the moment.”

You brought up a good question; whether we evolved or were created, does it really matter?

The answer is yes!  We’ll forget about all of the social implications for now and deal with the final result.  Let’s look at it objectively; if evolution is true, than no, nothing really matters.  If Creation is true, however, than you have a lot to lose by accepting evolution.  How much?  After all, who needs God anyway?  Another good question.  Here’s the answer:

www.NeedGod.com

I mean it!  Check it out!  You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain!


The bible has never gotten it right where science challenged it. It's always wrong.

Actually, wherever “science” has contradicted the Bible, like in the question of whether or not Assyria ever existed, it’s been the so-called “scientists” who have failed to “get it right”.

Superdude, you said, “There is simply no evidence that the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old. Which, btw, is determined by geology independent of evolution.”

Did you notice that those same dating methods used to come up with “4.5 billion years” have dated the layers at the bottom of the Grand Canyon as older than the layers at the top?

No, geology does not prove that the earth is billions of years old.  And no, those who claim that it does are not independent in any way of evolution!

“Evolution isn't concerned with how the world came into being.”

Porky Pine, you get the point.  Okay, so he said “world”.  How about “life”?  And evolution has tried to explain the origin of the earth (and the universe) before, but, as usual, it fell flat on its face!



So Kent Hovind is a fraud?  Have you gone to the website and tried to claim your money?  Do it!  Take him to court on it!  If he’s really a fraud, he’ll be in big legal trouble, and you’ll be $250,000 richer!



“how do u know the "experts" who talk about cosmic dust and magnetic fields are correct or telling the truth? why are u so quick to ask falling where he got the info on the Egyptians but your "facts" seem unassailable. he read something just like u read something.
if evolution is wrong, why does that point to a supernatural cause? couldn't there be another natural cause we don't know/understand yet? isn't that just as likely as a supernatural cause we don't know/understand yet?”

Guest, read my previous posts.  I’ve already explained the natural\supernatural thing.

Fallingup seemed to be taking what he liked from his “experts” while rejecting what he didn’t.  (He rejected evolution, but accepted, at least partially, the old-earth hoax)

I’m providing evidence.  You’re welcome to provide some of your own, or challenge mine.  My facts are not “unassailable”.  Do a little research on the arguments though, and you’ll find, as I have been trying to point out, that evolution is really ridiculous!



Guest, you claimed that “If a scientist could produce actual positive evidence of a young Earth that would over-throw evolution, it would be Nobel - winning stuff.  They would fight each other for the chance!  So far though, no one can do it.”

Not quite.  

The fact is that scientists already have discovered this evidence, and lots of it.  Evolutionists refuse to believe it.  Why?  Because of the implications.  Once they admit that evolution is false, they also have to admit that there’s a good chance that God exists.  That admission is what they want to avoid.  They refuse to deal with reality in hopes that it will just go away.

That’s never been a good idea!

How do you deal with it?

www.NeedGod.com



“If you look at all the creationist literature, you will find no evidence for a creation event.  You will find people trying to poke holes in evolution.  This is no way to build a scientific theory.”

AlexanderTheGreat, read my previous posts!  I’ve already explained why evidence against evolution is evidence for Creation!


Also, you said “i thought about this for ten seconds and thought of another just as probable explanation: aliens were fooling around with DNA and created some humans and placed them on the earth. how's that?”

Actually, having already written, published, and taught science fiction for years, evolutionists are picking up on that one as well.  I’m serious!



Sorry I’ve gone on for so long!


Listen, I simply don’t have time to do much of anything on these forums, so I’m signing off of this one.

Look around, (start with other forums on this site) and you’ll find more evidence that thoroughly destroys evolution.



If you only click on one link though, make it this one:

www.NeedGod.com


Let me repeat it, you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain!  Check it out!!!



Thanks for reading.


I’ll pray for you!



God bless!
www.NeedGod.com


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 4:13 PM on January 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism, of course, has been around essentially forever. It is evolution that was the bright new idea in 1859, and like most bright new ideas it received wide acceptance among the professional establishment fairly quickly — within a few decades. Intelligent Design, which is simply creationism with a new mask, is not a brilliant outsider fighting an ossified establishment, it's an old, old idea that has been universally rejected because it's been replaced by a much better one.

Creationists play for sympathy by claiming that evolution is a shaky theory protected by a jealous scientific elite. But nothing could be further from the truth. The scientific establishment is constantly adding new members, and if there was even a shred of evidence for creationism there would be legions of bright young grad students latching onto it, hoping to make a name for themselves.

No such thing has happened. Not in 10 years, not in 50 years, not for over a century. The closest we've come has been Lysenkoism, which set back Russian biology by decades.

Why? Because there's nothing there. There is plenty of activity in the field of evolution and bits and pieces of it will no doubt continue changing for a long time. But creationism? It's like suggesting that geologists ought to pay serious attention to people who claim the earth is flat.

Creationism is as demonstrably false as a science as it's possible for a theory to be.  The biggest problem creationist have is that they have decided to argue creationism is a scientific theory; and in doing so they have implicitily accepted the ground rules of the scentific community.  This is a disaster for them, since there is simply no way that they can win this battle.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:17 AM on February 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and I believe every tittle of it. God has not only given us amazing insight on His nature through the Holy Ghost, but also through His creation (as tainted as we have incouraged it to be). I mean this life, the things we live out every day absolutly could not be the result of a bunch of nothing. The complexity of even the simplist of things is far beyond the theory of pure chance. Have you ever just stopped to notice how amazing life is: we eat, we sleep, do we never think about the complexity? This life is the result of God, and I pray that all will come to Him and escape the wrath of the wicked one.
               -Benjamin
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:53 PM on February 6, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I mean this life, the things we live out every day absolutly could not be the result of a bunch of nothing. The complexity of even the simplist of things is far beyond the theory of pure chance"

"Wow", said the caveman, "these things called wrist watches are so complex!", "They must have been made by God!"




 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 08:20 AM on February 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You make fun of the most High God, and your blood is not on my hands.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:31 PM on February 19, 2003 | IP
dittoheadAZ

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

<<Quote from David_B_Thompson at 3:20 PM on January 6, 2003 :
Thus, if evolution is proved to be false, then all that is left as a possibility is a supernatural explanation.>>
True - in fact, even if evolution is true despite the incredible timeframe (Harold Morowitz's calculations may not be accurate due to possibly erroneous assumptions he's made, but the general idea is correct), that still wouldn't discount a supernatural explanation ("theistic evolution") - so the evolutionists can't really use their arguments for evolution to disprove the existence of God (although they still try).

<>
This one IS a common error (the YECs cite it rather frequently, although it's just a matter of time before it's on the growing "don't use this argument" list) - the size of the Sun is variable, as best determined by scientists - while sunspot observations are sketchy before the invention of the telescope, there is other evidence that the Sun is a very-long-term variable (on the order of hundreds of years).  This argument is similar to the "Earth's magnetic field" argument, which assumes only a decline rather than a fluctuating field.  (Dr Ross in his book "Creation and Time" talks about both of these in Chapter 10, although he does not mention the variability of the Sun, but rather other measurements which show that the diameter is essentially constant over a 7-year period.)

If anyone really wants an interesting story, Paul Davies denied the possibility of God as Creator in 1983, began to change his mind over the next few years, and won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1995!  (Guest of 4 February - it appears that when you say "creationists", you are really referring to "young-earth creationists" - many of us creationists do not subscribe to the young-earth theory - Dr Ross's above-mentioned book discusses the history behind this "argument" as well as some of the more recent scientific information...)

 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 02:14 AM on September 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

so the evolutionists can't really use their arguments for evolution to disprove the existence of God (although they still try).

Bull.  Science can not speak on the existence or non existence of god by its very definition.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 9:10 PM on September 6, 2004 | IP
siciliano

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing about evolution "science" is that only one or two out of seven parts of it are actually scientific.  Adaptations and mutations in micro organsims.  Thats an obvious one, we know that the cold can be beaten off by our immune system only to return the next year a little bit stronger.  However does that cold ever return as the flu or typhoid or AIDS.  No because the scientific part of evolution supports changes overtime in species not the creation of a fundamentaly different organism through changes over time.  The imfamous lucy and homo habilus were, if anything merely anomalies of a species not missing links between species.  Is someone ten thousand years from now going to find Yow Mings skeleton and think that because most other chinese people in the world are significantly shorter that he was a different species, amissing link between chinese people of today and the nine foot tall chinese people of the forty eigth century.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 9:16 PM on October 27, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing about evolution "science" is that only one or two out of seven parts of it are actually scientific.

This is untrue.  Please list the tenets of evolution and then present evidence for those you claim are not scientific.  

Adaptations and mutations in micro organsims.  Thats an obvious one, we know that the cold can be beaten off by our immune system only to return the next year a little bit stronger.

But what about adaptations and mutations in more complex organisms?  We've seen them also.  What about the obvious transitional fossils we've discovered, like Archaeopteryx and acanthostega?  What about transitional organisms alvie today, like the platypus?  Evolution is the only explaination for them.

However does that cold ever return as the flu or typhoid or AIDS.

And this disproves evolution how???

No because the scientific part of evolution supports changes overtime in species not the creation of a fundamentaly different organism through changes over time.

Again, this is untrue.  Evolution supports common descent of all life on earth.  Some of the evidence for this is that all life on earth uses DNA which is composed of the same 4 nucleic acids.  We see nested hierarchies in all life both living and in the fossil record.  We find many series of transitional lifeforms.  All the evidence found to date supports the common descent of all life on earth from a common ancestor.  If you claim this is false, present your evidence!

The imfamous lucy and homo habilus were, if anything merely anomalies of a species not missing links between species.

Anomalies of a species that had a thriving popultaion and had obvious precursors of many of the characteristics of humans...And lets not forget to look back before habilis, they are distinctly related to A.Africanus but have larger brains and looking forward, they are distinctly related to Homo Erectus but had smaller brains.  This is no anomaly, this is direct evidence of evolution of modern humans.
it seems you don't understand how evolution works...

Is someone ten thousand years from now going to find Yow Mings skeleton and think that because most other chinese people in the world are significantly shorter that he was a different species, amissing link between chinese people of today and the nine foot tall chinese people of the forty eigth century.

Of course not because scientists are nowhere near as ignorant as you are.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:40 AM on October 28, 2004 | IP
Dow

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Quran states that God created the Earth in 2 Days and the Universe and all that is in it in 6 Days.

The ratio of this is
0.333

The ACTUAL age of the Universe is 13.5 Billion years old and the Earth is 4.55

The ratio of this is
0.333

How could Mohammad know this?


-------
Religion without Science is Void
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:25 AM on March 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He read the Bible?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:41 AM on March 7, 2006 | IP
314

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

13.5 / 4.55 = 2.97

...still, an interesting coincidence...

 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 02:51 AM on March 14, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not really.  That ratio would eventually show up after enough years.  After enough more years (ooh, bad grammar) the ratio will change.  When my mother was 19, I was 1 (ratio of 1/19, or .05).  When she was 36, I was 18 (18/36 = 1/2 = .5).  Age ratios change over time.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:18 AM on March 14, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I hereby curse all of you for bringing back to life a two-year dead topic.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:49 AM on March 14, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.