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
     Creationism's World

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If creationism was true, what should we see?

Examples:

Fossil beds sorted by mass and size, not complexity

Radioactivity behaving very differently from today reflecting a shorter time frame
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 8:22 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If creationism was true, what should we see?

A very primitive, non technolgical world since science wouldn't work.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:37 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:37 PM on September 16, 2008 :
If creationism was true, what should we see?

A very primitive, non technolgical world since science wouldn't work.


Aside from that, what kind of flora, fauna, laws of nature, etc would be different from today?



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 10:47 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
knightofchrist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What, if creationism is true science would still make sense, and according to a creationists beliefs God created science so we could understand his world better. Then of course there is the whole matter that some (not all) early scientists were christian.


-------
If evolution is correct then our minds are the result of random chemical reactions then how can we trust them?
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 5:53 PM on September 17, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from knightofchrist at 5:53 PM on September 17, 2008 :
What, if creationism is true science would still make sense, and according to a creationists beliefs God created science so we could understand his world better. Then of course there is the whole matter that some (not all) early scientists were christian.


Under a metaphorical view of Creation, yes that all makes sense.

But under a literal interpretation, the kind with man made out of dust, a global flood, dinosaurs with man, 6,000 year old Earth, it doesn't make sense



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 8:11 PM on September 17, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, It is not necessarily 6-10000 years old. The genealogy from, Jesus to Adam is 10 000 years old, and Adam was created on the last day, and if the days were not literal days, it could easily be several billion years old.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 8:12 PM on September 18, 2008 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If the days mentioned in the bible aren't literally days, then who's to say that the rest of the bible should be taken literally.  You can't use a book as a factual, literal reference tool, then decide that parts of it can't be taken literally, but only the parts that you say; it calls into question the use of the book as a factual reference tool at all.
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 12:48 PM on September 19, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seems like that's the quandary that Creationists find themselves in.  We all know that a literal interpetation of the bible doesn't wash with known facts.  

If one part of the Bible is proved untrue, then that compromises the integrity of the rest of the Bible - so the reasoning goes.  So these people try to prove that a literal interpetation of the bible true, and turn a blind eye to all the secular/scientific facts presented to them.

That's not a pleasant position to be in, I'm sure.  

Other people can accept the Bible for what it is, a set of myths with spiritual teachings.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:02 PM on September 19, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I excuse myself beforehand for my poor grammar and misspellings. English is not my native language.

I don't know exactly what the average creationist believes in. They seem to look down on flat earthers, just like regular christians look down on them...

But why are they not trying to prove that bats are birds, pi = 3, and the sky holds water but lets it pas trhough doors so it can rain?

In a creationist world whales and snakes would have no vestigial hips.

There would be no vestigial eyes in blind species.

There would be no parasites (or would Noah bring them into the Ark? Were there any before the apple, or did they "evolve" since then? No, that could not be... Did the Devil create parasites??).

Humans and chimps would have very different DNA, if any.

In any case there would certainly be no junk DNA. Ok, perhaps Adam would have been able to produce his own vitamin C (like dogs, or the ancestors of humans), but would he have had all of what today is junk activated? Would he have looked still human???
Did he have long fangs? Was he covered with fur?

Adam would be far better than us all... Could he swing from trees using his feet, like monkeys? Our plantaris muscle is atrophied. What about Adam's?

I KNOW!! God used the monkey's blueprint, tinkered with it a bit, atrophied some stuff and some strings of DNA, imprinted His likeness et voilà!

So now it seems like we descend from monkeys, while actually God used the previous blueprint. I think it could make sense.

Do christians in general believe that individuals pass on they characteristics onto their offspring? That should automatically lead to the concept of evolution, but even if it doesn't, well, if prayers worked, praying people would be more auspicious, and have more offspring, most of them with the type of brain that promotes praying, right? And 6000 years would be more than enough to (let's not say "evolve") produce almost a 100% of praying humans!

In a creationist world the laws of physics would be very different. They should allow rainbows not to exist for the first 2k years or so (the first one appeared after the flood). Perhaps rainbows would be not possible at all, and every rainbow would be a miracle from then on.

We would find the Ark (big enough to hold a couple of each of the billions of species that ever existed) and Noah's family's snorkels (40 days and 40 nights of rain raised the ocean levels by 29,000 feet to cover the Earth, 30 foot an hour).
You think 4 elephants would be troublesome? He sure had a big ark! Because there have been 160 species of probiscideans (158 of which became extint as soon as they laid foot off the Ark. Why did God put Noah trhough all the trouble of embarking such amount of dead meat????).


Continents would be moving very quickly, to account for a recent Panagea where all terrestrial critters could have migrated from Noah's Ark by foot.

China... Well... China would mention the flood in their history. Actually... China should not exist at all. Probably the Devil created China.

Some creationist claim that it wasn't "two of each species" but "two of each kind". No creationist would clarify how many kinds or where does one end and the other start, but in any case an extremely rapid since-ark-evolution should have taken place since the flood, to account for the millions of species alive (only today, let alone the extinct ones). And that rapid evolution should have slowed down... I don't know when... Because every ancient culture would have noticed such rapid change... And creationist don't believe in evolution anyway...

Fish could live in fresh or salty water. For during the flood there was only "water". Some creationists say that the seas were not salty prior to the flood. Then how come there are so many salty water fishes? Super fast evolution again?

We would find fossils of every animal migrating from Ararat. We would find fossil koalas with bags filled with leaves of eucalyptus (the only thing they eat) down the 9k miles from Ararat to New South Wales.

There would be no gonorrhea. For who would have carried it into the Ark? It's a human disease. Who on the Ark could have been infected? They were the only ones in the whole Earth worth saving!

The world population would be much smaller. Well, creationist claim that there are just the number of people alive today that there would be if we had started repopulating the Earth after the Flood.

Well then at Christ's death there were only ½ million people in the whole world. When the jews escaped Egypt, in 1560 BCE, there were 320 or so. And the pyramids... Well... They must have been built by Noah's family!!
Around 200 BCE the Chinese built the first section of the Great Wall, and a tomb for their first emperor.
The historians say 300.000 soldiers were dedicated to the first, and 700.000 citizens (at least) cooperated for the second. So every person in the world (and more) were busy at the tomb.

Oh, yeah! The Devil made the Chinese!! So they don't count as population.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:27 AM on September 23, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 8:12 PM on September 18, 2008 :... and if the days [of Creation] were not literal days, it could easily be several billion years old.


Which just makes things WORSE for the Bible!

The Genesis Creation myth has several things out of order --- such as its false claims that angiosperms appeared before animals, and that birds appeared before land animals: therefore, making a "day" a billion years just multiplies the already existing error in the Bible by a billion or so.


 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 08:10 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.