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
     Proof what evolution
       What is it?

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

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God is so real and so is creation, i need no proof.i was an atheist and was saved, now when i speak of God all i feel is joy and love. He is alive in each one of us- he is "knocking" on your heart- all you have to do is listen...and open the door.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:42 PM on October 7, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's fine.

You can believe in Creation, even a literal Creation. But if you start claiming that there is scientific evidence for a literal Creation then that is called Creationism and I will argue against that.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 8:52 PM on October 8, 2003 | IP
ILoveJesus19088

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, but there is scientific proof.  The universe is so complex and so orderly that nothing, not chance, not, an explosion, not evolution, nothing except for God could have created it. I mean think about it, if the earth were even just a bit closer to the sun, it would burn up. . .if it were a bit further it would freeze! Now, tell me, how can you rely upon mere chance.  It gives you no meaning to life whatsoever! ANd even if evolution were true, than it still had to start somewhere, somthing or someone had to put it into mosion.  Somthing or someone had to create organisms! And I personally believe that that somthing is God.  I'm sorry if i'm offending anyone, I just really wanted to give my opinion! so, no hard feelings k?


-------
Godsgurl
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 5:35 PM on October 9, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, but there is scientific proof.

Nah, no proof at all!  You just wish there was!

The universe is so complex and so orderly that nothing, not chance, not, an explosion, not evolution, nothing except for God could have created it.

Why?  We already see  complexity arising naturally in the world around us.  Please give us evidence of God's creating beside your personal incredulity.

I mean think about it, if the earth were even just a bit closer to the sun, it would burn up. . .if it were a bit further it would freeze!

You've got it backwards, the universe wasn't built for us to live in, we evolved to live in it.  The universe was here first, so your what if questions don't mean anything.

It gives you no meaning to life whatsoever!

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, of course it gives no meaning to life whatsoever!  It's not suppose to!  All it does is explain the evidence and the TOE is the best explaination for the diversity of life on earth.

ANd even if evolution were true, than it still had to start somewhere, somthing or someone had to put it into mosion.  Somthing or someone had to create organisms!

Yes, evolution isn't about how life first arose, that's abiogenesis.  But since everything we have seen so far can be explained  by natural forces, it's logical to assume that everything we can't explain yet is caused by unknown natural processes.  Just because we don't know yet how life first came about doesn't mean God did it!

I'm sorry if i'm offending anyone, I just really wanted to give my opinion! so, no hard feelings k?

No offense taken, no hard feelings and you're certainly entitled to your opinion!  But this is a debate board, so do expect some opposition.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:26 AM on October 10, 2003 | IP
Daniel_Dietrich

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

food for thought:
 
    1. if you look at evolution it is all about chance and when calculated out the chance of a single cell organism evolving is 1 to 10 to the 40000 power
         basically there is a better chance of a tornado flying through a junkyard and creating a working flyable Boeing 747

    2. explain this,
               it has been proven that the earths atmosphere has a half-life of 1400 years and if that was so then 20000 years ago, not even 1 million as u might say, but 20000 years ago the atmosphere would have the magnetic forse of a star thus it would not be able for many of the elements sustaining life to exist thus proving the earth cant be as old as you say

 So Chew On That Daemon 38



-------
If any questions aim me at: concretefloats16
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 01:19 AM on March 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if you look at evolution it is all about chance and when calculated out the chance of a single cell organism evolving is 1 to 10 to the 40000 power basically there is a better chance of a tornado flying through a junkyard and creating a working flyable Boeing 747

Nah, your completely wrong on all counts!  How did you calculate those ridiculous odds??!
They don't mean anything and have no bearing on evolution or reality.  Next, the formation of first life has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, that's abiogenesis!  And lastly, evolution is not all about chance! While mutations are random, they are selected by the environment!   Geez, learn a little about what your argueing against, because you obviously know NOTHING about the Theory of evolution!

it has been proven that the earths atmosphere has a half-life of 1400 years and if that was so then 20000 years ago, not even 1 million as u might say, but 20000 years ago the atmosphere would have the magnetic forse of a star thus it would not be able for many of the elements sustaining life to exist thus proving the earth cant be as old as you say

You really seem to be a scientific illiterate!  Earth's atmosphere has a half life??  Thats crazy, the earth's atmosphere is constantly renewed by the plant and animal life.  You know, plants take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, animals breath in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide...self renewing.
You seem to be ranting about Earth's magnetic field, but it appears your as ignorant of geology as you are of evolution.  It has long been known that the earths magnetic field has increased, decreased and completely switched poles.  Your stupid assertion that the earth would have had the magnetic force of a star has been disproven for decades!  Do yourself a favor and read some real science instead of those creationist sites that continually lie for the lord!

Chew on that?!?  

(Edited by admin 3/9/2004 at 07:39 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:33 AM on March 9, 2004 | IP
Daniel_Dietrich

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.  And could not possibil be billions of years of years old.
Maybe u should stop listening to all those websites that lie for Darwin.
if u still dont believe me (denial) u can look up his work urself


explain this



-------
If any questions aim me at: concretefloats16
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:53 PM on March 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dr. Thomas Barnes has been thouroughly debunked.  His calculations were based on incorrect models of the earth's core and out moded theories on paleomagnetism.  Definitive work in the field??? hardly!
I got this form the United States Geological Society:
USGS

"Is it true that the magnetic field occasionally reverses its polarity?
Yes. We know this from an examination of the geological record. When lavas are deposited on the Earth’s surface, and subsequently freeze, and when sediments are deposited on ocean and lake bottoms, and subsequently solidify, they often preserve a signature of the ambient magnetic field at the time of deposition. This type of magnetization is known as 'paleomagnetism'. Careful measurements of oriented samples of faintly magnetized rocks taken from many geographical sites allow scientists to work out the geological history of the magnetic field. We can tell, for example, that the Earth has had a magnetic field for at least 3.5 billion years, and that the field has always exhibited a certain amount of time-dependence, part of which is normal secular variation, like that which we observe today, and part of which is an occasional reversal of polarity. Incredible as it may seem, the magnetic field occasionally flips over! The geomagnetic poles are currently roughly coincident with the geographic poles, because the rotation of the Earth is an important dynamical force in the core, where the main part of the field is generated. Occasionally, however, the secular variation becomes sufficiently large such that the magnetic poles end up being located rather distantly from the geographic poles; we say that the poles have undergone an ‘excursion’ from their preferred state."

You'll notice a few key statements, like the fact that we have concrete, empirical, testable evidence that the Earth's magnetic field is at least 3.5 billion years old.  
So that right there proves you and Dr. Barnes wrong.  But hold on, we also have conclusive evidence that the strength of earth's magnetic field fluctuates.  From the same USGS web site:

"Direct historical measurements of the intensity of the geomagnetic field have been possible ever since Gauss invented the magnetometer in the 1830’s. Since then the average intensity of the field at the Earth’s surface has decreased by about ten percent. And we know, from paleomagnetic records, that the intensity of the field does indeed decrease, by as much as ninety percent, at the Earth’s surface during a reversal. But those same paleomagnetic records also show that the field intensity has often exhibited significant variation, with both decreases and increases in intensity, without there always being a coincident reversal. So, an intensity low does not necessarily mean that a reversal is about to occur. Moreover, the recent decrease in intensity is not really that dramatic of a departure from normality, and for all we know the field may actually get stronger at some point in the not-so-distant future."

Once again, hard, empirical,testable data that shows that the Earth's magnetic field varies in intensity, it has not been steadly decreasing, it has fluctuated, sometimes it decreases, sometimes it increases and sometimes it actually flips polarity, we have strong evidence for this.  Dr. Barnes hypothesis has been totally demolished.  And I'd hardly call the USGS a Darwin website, geologists don't give a damn about evolution.  
No, your are demonstratably incorrect, when will you learn that your creationist sources are incredibly bias, unreliable and are not above lieing for the Lord!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:36 AM on March 10, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.