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
     evolution is not science
       evolution is a religion not a science

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

    
turbo3

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is not a science it cannot be proven. Evolution is a religion. Why should I go for Evolution over other religions?
~Turbo~


-------
Body piercing saved my life
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 2:31 PM on March 19, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course evolution is science.  Science does not deal in "proof" but in evidence.  Science starts with the evidence and tries to formulate a theory that best explains it.  Religion starts with the "TRUTH" and then claims that only the evidence that supports their myth is real, anything that doesn't agree with their "TRUTH" is rejected out of hand.
The Theory of Evolution has 150 years of testing, refining and research behind it.  As it stands today, the Theory of Evolution explains the evdence for the developement and diversity of life on Earth so well that there are no other theories for this diversity and developement.  It is as well accected as Nuclear theory or the Theory of Gravity.  Before you whine about evolution being a religion again, try to learn a little bit about it, you won't look so foolish.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:26 AM on March 21, 2003 | IP
turbo3

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok scienc deals with evidence. Where is the evidence for evolution???  If Science is anything that has evidence why isn't creation tought in the school system. Creationism has more proof than evolution as far as I can tell
What is the difference between "proof" and "evidence" last time i checked they ment the same thing.
Creationism has the same basis of logic that evolution has. We are here, why are we here? how did we get here?
there are only two choices.
We came from a blob
or we came from a creator.
we can see that all of creation is wonderfully designed. No one will argue that. And so therfore there must have been a creator.
The theory of creation has had more than 200 years of testing. (btw darwin wasn't the one who came up with evolution he just popularized it it was there at least 400 yrs. before darwin)

Creationism also explanes the diversity and development that you and I can see today.

I am not "Whineing" If you want to call names or make judgements go ahead but that is not a very good thing to place a debate on.
I have studied evolution and I see no proof or evidence that it can or does work.
I once read a saying that said that a man can only look foolish if that is what he is but that if someone calls a man a fool and then finds out that he is not he will be the fool.


-------
Body piercing saved my life
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 5:57 PM on March 21, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where is the evidence for evolution???!!!  Do a little research!!  How about the fossil record, we see a progression of life generally becoming more complex.  We see thousands of transitional fossils, fossils of animals that have a combination of characteristics just as the Theory of evolution predicts.  
How about the genetic evidence?  Every living thing uses DNA, there are ubiquitous genes that every living organism on Earth has in common.  Species that are more closely related have more similar genetic structure.  This is only the tip of the iceburg that is evolution!  The evidence is overwhelming!  
Creationism (at least the fundamentalist belief that God created every thing intact in literally 6 days 6000 years ago) has no logic.  It was falsified over 200 years ago when geologists realized that there was no way the Earth was only a few thousand years old.  How does Creationism explain anything   ...Goddidit!  "POOF!" It's magic!!!
Sorry, I stopped beleiving in magic when I was 6 years old.  
You claim you have studied evolution, I seriously doubt that.  You say you see no proof of evolution, where was that, some pathetic creationist web site?  It's clear from your inane rhetoric you have no idea what the Theory of Evolution really is.
Grow up, this is the 21st century, religion has it's place for some people but it has no place in real science.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:01 PM on March 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is not a science

Why not?

it cannot be proven

Science doesn't work in proofs.

Evolution is a religion

Why?

Where is the evidence for evolution?

Direct observation, genetics, the fossil record.

If Science is anything that has evidence why isn't creation tought in the school system.

Because that's not what science is.  Secondly, creation is a purely religious concept as it is based on a god.

Creationism has more proof than evolution as far as I can tell


Well, that's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Creationism has the same basis of logic that evolution has. We are here, why are we here? how did we get here?


Wrong.  Science has nothing to do with 'why are we here'.

we can see that all of creation is wonderfully designed. No one will argue that. And so therfore there must have been a creator.


Ummm, no.  Nature is the designer.  It is not conscious.

I have studied evolution and I see no proof or evidence that it can or does work.

Please don't lie.  Your previous statements show you clearly haven't studied evolution.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:19 PM on March 22, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can you even begin to say that evolution has no evidence while creationism has more?!
The only evidence which you have posted on my thread is about shells on top of a mountain, which is completely ilogical that they were caused by the floads, consideing that shellfish SINK.  And that doesnt even refute evolution, if the world wide flood happened, which it didnt.  So far, i have not seen a single thread of evidence to disprove evolution, and if i have missed it, please clerify!  Your theory of god seperating the people of bable is a nice fairy tail, but it doesnt explain the variations in all the other families of the world, or why they change to fit thier environment, whichwe know that they do.  You arent refuting evolution, you are clinging onto all the ideas of creationism before it becomes absolete from the proof of evolution, but untill that day, i would like to hear a real contention disproving evolution.  Please, continue
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:26 AM on March 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Go look up and see if there were shells on Mt. Evorest. If they sink then why would they
be there?
Ok u are talking about VARIATIONS not evolution. there are hundreds of variations but
they all come from a like source. Birds come from birds, dogs come from dogs. That
does not proove evolution

Are u saying that nature is the designer? please give me an example other that variation. Have u ever seen nature design something new?
Has nature designed a computer? No man makes computers. It is illogical that a
computer could just happen right?

I see that we all have a different definition of "science" Can some one give me a
definition that we all agree on
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:43 PM on March 25, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BTW please don't call me ignorant or anything like that because i don't agree with you. this is a debate we are supposed to weigh eachothers comments and try and refute them. yes i am going to stick with creationism because i see the logic of it. If you come up with proof that makes more sence i am willing to listen. Name calling doesn't win an argument.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:46 PM on March 25, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first, if your talking about the genetic variation of dogs which i was talking about in my thread, make it easy for me, and keep them all in one place, thanx.

With the shells, just becasue they are there in a very illogical place, does not mean that god did it.  It is simply showing that you cannot use that argument to say that the flood happened, because it DOES NOT explain, or proove, that the flood happened.  Im not using it as an argument, just a question, in a legal stand point, i am trying to discredit your proof that the flood took place, which i did, since even a flood wouldnt produce such results.  Just because we still dont know why they are there, doesnt mean they can be randomly tied to some event to try to prove it even if it doesnt even comply with it at all.  Thier reason of being there is still unknown, so it would be false to use it as evidence for something which it refutes.   mmm, clams

With the variations, if they are directed at my comments, please post them in my thread, as i said above, so i dont have to say the same thing twice.

Now, your comment about how illogical it is that nature could have created everything kinda ticks me off, becuase why couldnt it, whats keeping that from being true?  a book?
sure, its the bible, and holy and everything, but what about all the other holy books out there?  What about one that says that nature created everything, how would we telll which was rigth?!  By proof?  I havent seen much proof for the creationism side, only attempts to disproove a forming idea, notice the word forming, as we still do not know everything, we are still open to change in the theory.  Once again, this is a hipocritical argument asking how could nature create everything?  I SAY, HOW COULD THIS BEING CREATE EVERYTHING.  THE QUESTIONS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, SO DONT BE SAYING THAT IT IS OBSERD THAT NATURE COULD CREATE EVERYTHING, AND HOW ILLOGICAL IT IS WHEN YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS INDEFINATE BEING THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HERE, CREATED EVERYTHING!!!  TO REFUTE THAT ARGUMENT WOULD BE TO REFUTE YOUR OWN, SO GO AHEAD, TRY!  Once again i get P Oed because of some narrow sighted, hipocritical comment!
Oh, and by the way, now that i think about it, nature doesnt have to create the computer, as god doesnt have to create the computer.  Just to let you know.

I know where this definitions of science thingy is going, you are going to pick little minute details where i would get the definition wrong, so instead of my waisting my time, why dont you just tell us yours, and make it be up to your complete expectations which you would have hoped you would get from mine.

I am sorry that i was insulting, but you deserved it.  I call for clean debates also, but not when some one makes a veiled attack on another beliefe, which is similar to thier own.  Just watch what you say about others ideas, and come on, give me a break, at elast think a little before you try to make a clever comment, because some one might actualy understand what you were saying and think a little more about it than you, and make you into a complete jerk.  Thanx for your time, and by the way, next time you make a hidden attack on anothers ideas, im not holding back what i say about your ideas, and bypass my debating maner of respect.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:00 PM on March 26, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Go look up and see if there were shells on Mt. Evorest. If they sink then why would they
be there?"
The reason there are shells on the top of Mt Everest is because at one time it was a sea bed.  India slammed into the Asian continent and pushed up the Himalya mountains and is still pushing them up to this day.  The sea bed and the shells buried there have become the top of Mt. Everest.  Mystery solved, no evidence of a world wide flood.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:18 AM on March 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, that may not "prove" that the flood happened, but it is a very interesting fact that they are there. Also they are closed. in order for a clam to be dead closed is if it were burried quickly. when they die they open up. almost all [im not positive if all] found were closed. why would they be closed if they were buried?

I'm saying that we se evidence of something extreemly complicated [a cell for example is 100 times more complicated than a space shuttle] and you are trying to get me to believe that a space shuttle couldn't just happen and that it needed a creator but that a cell just happened?

I wasn't going to try and be nit picky about the definition of science.
My definition of science would be something that was brought about by logical thought, testing, and evidence.
Evolution:
scientists BELIEVE that that is how it happened.
they try to prove it with variation
They were not there

Creation:
Creationists BELIEVE that is how it happened
they try to prove it with evidence
they were not there

I'm sorry that offended u. I am just saying we are both on oppisit sides of the debate and disagree about the subject we are debating. Im not critisising you i am trying to tell you what i believe and why i belive it. and understand why you think your argument is more logical. If i thought that evolutionist were jerks i could be nasty and say so. I don't think  that evolutionists are bad or evil just wrong.
i don't think that you are unitelligent because of what you believe.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:32 PM on March 27, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thats just a mystery, no proof or disproof at all, just a myster.

Who says that cells have always been so complucated?  They got more complicated to fit thier environment better.  There is a prooven study of a scientist who gathered up all the basicchemicals that existed on earth when it was newly formed, still hot and highly erratic with lightning.  he put all these chemicals in a bottle, blasted it with UV rays (no ozone layer than) and zapped it with energy (lightning from sparadic storms) and they clumped together to form nucleic acids (DNA RNA mRNA tRNA).  Another took a whole bunch of the early lipids and slushed them around in some water, and they formed tiny tiny bubbles, like bath soap.  these bubbles are now refered to as plasma membrane.  These are studies that are currently under scrutiny from the scientific community, but they have been tested truthfully and in the same envoronment of an early earth, and created these complex things.  

"they try to prove with evidence"   like what, give me some evidence, please.  Not a refute to evolution comments, but EVIDENCE OF THIER OWN TO PROVE CREATION!

Yves
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:33 PM on March 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you talking about the miller experiment with life in a test tube?
First off there was no oxygen in that test tube. because oxygen would not have let the different things bond that were needed to create life. there was ammonia in that test tube also, ammonia is affected by different types of light that are usually blocked by what? the oxegen in our atmosphere. as soon as life is created than what would be needed? oxygen. Also in that test tube he created 85% basically tar.  These chemicalls only went through the zapping part only once to go through again would have distroyed them. The experiment didn't even create something that could live only the building blocks [and even then not enough amino acids to complete that] of life.


Ok my evidence:

Cause and effect, somthing must happen for something else to happen ie, a building cannot be built without a builder

Life can only come from life. Not from a non living substance.

Evidence that everything in the world is according to its own speicies. No fossils have been found that prove otherwize.

2nd law of thermodynamics things get worse not better so coming from a soupp to this state is immpossible.

that is the BASIC jist of it but if you want more spacific details i can get them for you.

Basically it comes down to this
In the begining God  or
in the beginning dirt

personally i see in the beginning God.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:22 AM on March 28, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Cause and effect, somthing must happen for something else to happen ie, a building cannot be built without a builder"
First of all, quantum mechanics indicates that cause and effect aren't necessarily true, particles can appear without a cause.  Don't know what this has to do with evolution though.  As for evolution, it is accepted as a virtual fact that life evolves, there is no evidence of a designer, natural selection and mutation/genetic drift/ recombination does the job just fine.

"Life can only come from life. Not from a non living substance"
Although this is about Abiogenesis, not evolution, there is no scientific law that says life can't come from non life.  There are literally hundreds of scientists working on this right now.  Do you mean to tell me they have no chance of success?  That despite their years of study, hard work and experimentation, you know more about biochemistry then they do?  Then simply explain to me why this is inherently impossible...

"Evidence that everything in the world is according to its own speicies. No fossils have been found that prove otherwize."
This statement is just plain wrong.  We have already seen the formation of new species, that is a fact.  And the fossil record is replete with transitional fossils, transitions between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds, between reptiles and mammals, and don't forget the fantastic series of primate fossils clearly showing mans evolution.  Yes, there are tons of transitional fossils illustrating evolution.

"2nd law of thermodynamics things get worse not better so coming from a soupp to this state is immpossible"
This is not what the SLOT says, you obvious don't know what your talking about.  Nothing in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents the formation of life or the evolution of more complex lifeforms, absolutely nothing.

"personally i see in the beginning God"
If, by this, you mean that God created the universe, the world and all the life on it by supernatural fiat, then you are totally ignorant
of the true beauty and complexity of the world
the scientific method reveals to us.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:26 AM on March 28, 2003 | IP
turbo3

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have not seen any fossils that have been in the transition stage.
As for all those laws It seems to me that that is your opinion because i have never seen anyone refute them.

as for the second law of thermodynamics i would like you to give me an example other than evolution where this is true.

I'm not ignorant of the complexity of this world i just think that complexity makes more scence of a creator.

it still comes down to two theorys
in the beginning God or in the beginning dirt

The object of this thread was to define if evolution is a science or a religion not if it was true or not.

if evolution is a science than creationism is too if it is religion than creationism is too.

evolutionist try to prove their theory
creationists try to prove thiers
they both based on the origin of life
they both use science to try to prove it
they are both theorys
No one was there when it happened so they both cannot be proven as a fact.
It is a matter of opinion and beliefe



-------
Body piercing saved my life
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 6:01 PM on March 28, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All of this supposed proof the creationists have posted is about Abiogenisis.  that is NOT what we are talking about.  we are talking about evolution, which does not deal with how things started.

And by the way, the creationists dont pose thier arguments, because i havent seen any valid ones so far, please, proov me wrong!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:43 AM on March 29, 2003 | IP
Ahuactl

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have not seen any fossils that have been in the transition stage.

I shall now "evolve" 1 into 10

1
1+1=2
2+1=3
3+1=4
4+1=5
5+1=6
6+1=7
7+1=8
8+1=9
9+1=10


Please tell me which of those numbers is in "the transition stage".  Clearly, 1 changed into 10 by means of incremental changes, but without any "transition stage", whatever that means.

a building cannot be built without a builder

There isn't an architect in the world that would design a building as badly "designed" as most animals.  No engineer would design a movie camera with the wires between the lens and the photorecepters.  Nature did.  The light receptors in the human eye face inward.  The nerves carrying the impulses to the brain are between the lens and the recepters.

Nature is full of such bad "designs".  That evidence fits perfectly with evolution, but is inexplicable if one assumes that the world was designed.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 02:35 AM on March 29, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're right, this thread is supposed to be about whether evolution is science.  Let's deal with that.
First of all science starts with evidence, empirical, impartial observations.  From this evidence a scientist formulates an hypothesis to explain the evidence.  The hypothesis is tested, a means to falsify the hypothesis must be proposed, a way to show the hypothesis is wrong.  The hypothesis must make predictions based on the explaination it provides.  When an hypothesis explains all the available evidence with the fewest assumptions, is not falsified by further, repeatable testing, experimentation or observation and meets some of it's predictions, then that hypothesis is considered a Theory.  A scientific theory is never considered 100% proven, science does not deal in proofs, it deals in evidence.  New evidence can alter or even falsify a theory, it must continually stand up to scrutiny.  More evidence in support of the theory, more predictions of the theory that are met increase it's reliability, allow us to draw more conclusions from it, make more predictions to test it but never is it considered completely proven.  The theory of gravity for example, still not proven 100%.  The atomic theory, we build atomic reactors, atomic bombs, use radiometric dating, all based on the conclusions drawn from it, but it is not 100% proven.
Let's apply this to the Theory of Evolution.  Remember, in Darwins time creationism was the accepted belief for the state of the natural world.  Darwin looked at the evidence, related animals in different enviroments adapted specifically to those enviroments.  Survival of the fittest just means the animal most suited to it's enviroment will survive, when the enviroment changes the animal must adapt or die.  Over time these adaptations would accumulate and radically change the animal from it's ancestors.  And consequently all life evolved from a common ancestor.  Predictions that arise from the Theory of Evolution: the farther back in time you go, the more dissimilar life will be to it's moderm counterparts.  Evidence of transitional lifeforms would exist.  There must be some mechanism that allows for the transfer of traits from one generation to the next yet allows for changes.  The way to falsify the Theory of evolution, find evidence of modern life forms in the fossil record mixed with more primitive lifeforms.  Show that there is no mechanism for passing traits with variations from one generation to the next.
So far evolution has not been falsified.  The further back we go in the fossil record, the more life is different from modern life.  We see in the fossil record many transitional fossils, transitional between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, just to name a few.  Since Darwin proposed his theory we have discovered DNA, a method of transferring traits from one generation to the next but by way of mutation/genetic drift/recombination, changes to these traits are possible.  All life is based on DNA, there are ubiquitous genes that all living things have, evidence that all life comes from a common ancestor.  Each year more and more evidence to support the Theory of Evolution is found, more predictions are made and fullfilled.  Yes, it has changed to reflect new knowledge, but this is a strength of the scientific method, it is self correcting, nothing is taken on faith, everything must be tested, reviewed, tested again.  Because of this constant testing and reevaluation, the Theory of Evolution is the best, the ONLY theory that explains all the evidence for the diversity of life on Earth.  If a better theory emerges that explains this evidence even better, that stands up to the intense scrutiny evolution has, then science will embrace it.  As of now virtually the entire scientific community  accepts the Theory of Evolution.  That life evolves is considered a fact, the means by which life evolves are still being studied and while they are somewhat well understood, there is still a lot to learn, this is the theoretical part of the Theory of Evolution.

Now let's look at creationism and why it is not science.  First of all, creationism doesn't start with the evidence, it's main premise comes from Genesis in the Bible.  So without looking at any evidence, doing no testing or experimentation, making no observations of the natural world, creationists claim their "theory" is correct.  Remember a scientific theory best explains the available evidence with the fewest assumptions.  Since creationism does not follow the process of establishing a scientific theory, it is, therefore, not a scientific theory.
Science deals with the natural world, which is anything in this universe (and possibly beyond).  It is assumed that any thing in the natural world must have a natural explaination and therefore science can study it, it is subject to the scientific method.  Can science allow us to understand and explain everything, to know everything?  Well, we certainly don't know everything yet, but if we can observe it, detect it, we can theorize about it.  God, by definition, is supernatural, he is beyond nature, greater than nature because, according to the Bible, he created nature, he created everything.  God can do anything and everything, and since the power of God can explain everything, it explains nothing, at least in the eyes of science.  Science can only theorize about that which it can observe, detect, and since God is undetectable and his power can be the explaination for anything, science has no way to evaluate, test, observe or conduct experiments this.  So science doesn't deny God, it only says that since he is supernatural science can't test, ovserve, detect his presence.  Science can't prove or disprove the existence of God, so he is excluded from any scientific theories. Creationism derives from God creating the universe by supernatural means, therefore, creationism is not a scientific theory.

I've made a lot of generalizations to get my point across.  I freely admit I am not a scientist, fairly well read, but not a scientist.  Those of you who are scientists, feel free to correct any mistakes or misconceptions I've made.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:46 AM on March 29, 2003 | IP
DontMakeNoSenseFoo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't mean to be bias by saying this, nor am I saying it stricly because I'm a Christian, but it seems to me like atheists are always accusing creationists of not checking the facts before talking - a.k.a. "Think before you speak!". I think the situation may be the opposite in many cases.

Why do I bring this up? Well, it's quite obvious:

The so-called "theory" of creationism does not state, and I quote:

Goddidit! "POOF" It's magic!

For one thing, the theory of creationism, assuming we're talking about Christianity, deems magic as evil. (Yes yes, laugh away).

And for another thing, there's more to it then "God did it!". Yes, he did do it. Take a look at Genesis for more information.

Thanks for your time.


-------
That don't make no sense foo!
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 11:27 PM on March 29, 2003 | IP
DontMakeNoSenseFoo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now that I read through these posts some more, it seems we're discussing the flood.

The fact that there are shells on Mount Everest to me is evidence that there was a flood. But that's not the primary evidence.

Non-creationists give explanations such as "A meteor crashed into the earth." to give logic to the extinction of the dinosaurs. If this were to be true, I have a comment as well as a question.

The size of the meteor would have to be gargantuan (assuming it were one meteor, it could have been multiple meteors), large enough that upon impact it would somehow obliterate dinosaurs all over the earth.

So, if the meteor is the explanation, then why did it destroy ONLY dinosaurs? Mammals and reptiles among other species existed at that time as well. How did they survive?

To me the great flood makes total sense, especially versus the theory of this meteor. It explains everything:


Q: Why did only dinosaurs only die out, and not anything else?

A: Not all dinosaurs necessarily died out. Aquatic creatures may have survived (including dinosaurs, fish, and mammals). However, the land-roaming dinosaurs were not taken upon The Arc because A) god did not instruct Noah to save them and B) they were far too big to fit on the boat.


Q: Why are dinosaur fossils below ground?

A: Simple: for the amount of time they were below water, soil could have easily eroded over top of them. Not only that, erosion over the amount of time after the flood could have covered them more and more.


These questions among others could be answered according to the bible.

Thank you for your time.


-------
That don't make no sense foo!
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 11:39 PM on March 29, 2003 | IP
DontMakeNoSenseFoo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nature is full of such bad "designs".  That evidence fits perfectly with evolution, but is inexplicable if one assumes that the world was designed.

Again, me reading through these posts.

*Sigh* okay. Here we go:

Who's to say that God works exactly like humans? Remember, God created us - oh, excuse me - according to the "theory" of christianity - which means he made us however he wants to make us. Our logic is only what he's made it, which means, though "nature" 's design may not make any sense to us, it makes perfect sense to him.

The idea that Christians a.k.a. "creationists" should have the answer to everything about the theory of creationism is wrong - we only know what God allows us to know; therefore, what we tell you is only what God has allowed us to know. Now I understand that often times "we" may post false statements - that is a mistake. But we're Christian, not perfect. Don't tell me you don't make mistakes too ;).

We're hypocrites? You're right. We are. We are the biggest load of hypocrites you'll ever see. If you wanna see mass hypocrisy, step right inside a church. But there is a reason for that - and I bet those against creationism don't know that reason. Why?

Because they've done what they've accused many of us of doing - not checking the facts.

Thank you.


-------
That don't make no sense foo!
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 11:48 PM on March 29, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Um, ok, flanders, just to tell you, if you were actualy looking at the previous posts, you would have already gotten a refute, but it seems that you need extra special attention

SHELLS SINK!!!  THEY SINK, AS IN NOT FLOAT.  ALL THE WATER COULD BE COMING DOWN BUT THE SHELLS WOULD STILL BE ON THE BOTTEM, NOT THE TOP!!!  This neither disproves or proves evolution, or creationism, so we have both (creationist and evolutionist) decided it is not to be considered evidence for anything.

A meteor fits another thing which you failed to discuss, plate shifting (whatever the technical term is).  the meteor was not as big as you think, where the explosion alone killed the animals.  It didnt, it just stirred up enough dist in the atmosphere to block out enough sun to start killing plants.  when plants died, herbavors died, than carnavors.  (btw, they think it hit in the gulf of mexico, thats why its so round)  As it is known, mammals of that era, when the dinos were around, were kinda like the reptiles are now, small mice and little verman and just smaller animals becuase the dinos were so dominant, it didnt givve room for the mammals to do well.  These giant dinos required a lot of food, and when there was a foor shortage from the dust blocking out the sun, they started to die.  the tiny mammals lived because they required much much less food to keep themselves alive.  the sea creatures because thier ecosystem doesnt need sun light as much as the land one, so they still have enough food, but these big SUV's of the time, found not enough food to fill thier belly and croaked.  The dinos werent the only ones also, many other bigger animals also died, its just not their whole race, like the dinos, so thats why we here about them and not the others.

The mere suggestion of the idea that the dinos cound fit is so obserd.  Already, this ARK (ARKS ARE NOT BOATS, THEY ARE SQUARE, LIKE THE ARK WHICH HOLDS THE TORAH, ETC, IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE BIBLE, AT LEAST GET IT RIGHT) is enormously big, i mean, 2 of every animals, dinos would only be a tiny section of this giant ship.  It says nothing in the bible that god told him not to take them, IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE BIBLE, GET IT RIGHT!  

Yes, these questions can be answered with the bible, but that doesnt mean they are correct.

Where did all this soilo come from?  The soil which magicaly covered up all the bones?  Did it fall from the sky?  come from god? (no mention of that!)  That where did this enormous amount of soil come from!!!

We call you ignorant because you blindly fallow your religion.  If you actualy had some proof that wasnt from the bible to proove that god exists, and noahs ark, and etc, than we wouldnt be calling you ignorant, aas being scientist, we would review your facts, and if true, accept it, but you havent given any proof.  So therefore, you are ignorant in not accepting the facts in front of you.  Bye the way, dont try and use stuff FROM the bible to prove that the stories in the bible are true.  Aftr all, i could write a story, than at the end, say all of what i have writen is true, even if its not.  But of course, knowing the creationists, they will ignore my post and i will get no response.  lets wait and see.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:03 AM on March 30, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The so-called "theory" of creationism does not state, and I quote:

Goddidit! "POOF" It's magic!

Sure it does!  Saying that the universe was created whole and intact in 6 days, all animals created as seperate "kinds" with out evolving defies the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, you name it!  Anything that defies the natural laws is, by definition, Supernatural or magic!  Adam being created without parents is magic, Eve being created from Adam's rib is magic, and as many creationists will tell you there was no death before the fall, predators did not eat meat, all can not be explained naturally, so they are magic! And let's not forget Noah and the Ark.  2 (or 7) depending on which account you buy into of every animal, physically impossible, could only be done by the all powerful magic of God!  Water covering the entire Earth? It can't possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, happen!  By everything we know about the ecosystem of our planet, it is absolutely impossible!  But to God everything is possible...poof! Goddidit!  It can only be magic!  Do you get it now, another name for miracles is magic.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:14 AM on March 30, 2003 | IP
DontMakeNoSenseFoo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The mere suggestion of the idea that the dinos cound fit is so obserd.  Already, this ARK (ARKS ARE NOT BOATS, THEY ARE SQUARE, LIKE THE ARK WHICH HOLDS THE TORAH, ETC, IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE BIBLE, AT LEAST GET IT RIGHT) is enormously big, i mean, 2 of every animals, dinos would only be a tiny section of this giant ship.  It says nothing in the bible that god told him not to take them, IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE BIBLE, GET IT RIGHT!

You're talking about me not reading posts? Please. If you would have read my post fully than you would have seen me clearly state that God MAY HAVE not wanted Noah to take these animals upon the ship. Yes, the Ark was big, but the bible does describe it's size, and due to the vast amount of dinosaurs and enormous size most likely they would not have fit upon the ship.

And what does this mean:

ARKS ARE NOT BOATS, THEY ARE SQUARE, LIKE THE ARK WHICH HOLDS THE TORAH, ETC, IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE BIBLE, AT LEAST GET IT RIGHT

I don't think you really understand that...the name of Noah's boat is The Arc (or Ark, depends on the translation). That doesn't mean that the ship was literally an arc. Also, the definition of Ark is "A large, commodious boat." So hey, I guess i did get it right! ;) And really, this is a debate, obviously, but there's no need to insult me for my comments; however, if you choose to continue to do so, I will choose to ignore you.

In response to Demon38: I understand where you're coming from. I do not take the bible word for word; for this some of my fellow creationists may not agree with me, but I believe that God is metaphoric. Therefore, what is seven days to god may be seven years to us, or seven thousand years, etc. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." But you'll notice it does not say much more than that - it's very vague. This means that the "non-creationist" theory of how the earth came to be could very well be true - making both theories true. Of course this is all a mere idea that I've contemplated.

Thank you.


-------
That don't make no sense foo!
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 10:53 AM on March 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From DMNSF:

The fact that there are shells on Mount Everest to me is evidence that there was a flood. But that's not the primary evidence.


No, it is not evidence for a flood.  It is evidence that the mountaintops were uplifted from the sea bottom.  The fact that shells within mountaintops are often (not always) found with the halves still held together indicates that the mollusks lived in the place where the fossils were found.  Shells transported from elsewhere would have separated as they are quite fragile after the animals die and the ligament holding the two halves together decays.  Also shells have growth rings indicating how old the mollusk was at time of death.  The fact that fossils of quite old mollusks are found on tops of mountains indicates that they lived there much longer than the supposed flood would have covered the mountaintops.  In other words the flood could not have deposited them there and they could not have lived on the top of the mountains during the flood due to the age of the mollusks at death.  Leonardo Da Vinci first recognized this over 400 years ago.

Non-creationists give explanations such as "A meteor crashed into the earth." to give logic to the extinction of the dinosaurs. If this were to be true, I have a comment as well as a question.

The size of the meteor would have to be gargantuan (assuming it were one meteor, it could have been multiple meteors), large enough that upon impact it would somehow obliterate dinosaurs all over the earth.

So, if the meteor is the explanation, then why did it destroy ONLY dinosaurs? Mammals and reptiles among other species existed at that time as well. How did they survive?


You should do some quick research on this as your questions have been answered.  Below is a quote from a website that answers your question about mammals.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/a.buckley/dino.htm

“On the land the effects of the impact on the flora and fauna would have been devastating, especially on the large animals which would need large food supplies and on the dinosaurs which would need sun light to keep warm. The global fires would have destroyed considerable amounts of vegetation (by the analysis of the soot in the K-T boundary it is estimated that 25% of the vegetation cover was destroyed), the immediate effect of this would have resulted in the death of the large herbivores. A knock on effect of this would have killed off the large carnivores. Only the small active scavengers, like birds and mammals, with the ability to find food from a wide range of sources would have survived. [emphasis added]”

A: Not all dinosaurs necessarily died out. Aquatic creatures may have survived (including dinosaurs, fish, and mammals). However, the land-roaming dinosaurs were not taken upon The Arc because A) god did not instruct Noah to save them and B) they were far too big to fit on the boat.


The Bible directly contradicts what you say.  From Genesis 6:

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground[emphasis added] will come to you to be kept alive.

Q: Why are dinosaur fossils below ground?

A: Simple: for the amount of time they were below water, soil could have easily eroded over top of them. Not only that, erosion over the amount of time after the flood could have covered them more and more.


Not sure what you are trying to say here.

These questions among others could be answered according to the bible.


But as we saw above, you attempt to answer questions with the Bible caused you to use an explanation that directly contradicts the Bible.

Joe T.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:55 PM on March 31, 2003 | IP
DontMakeNoSenseFoo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fair enough. In any case, I did mean "may not have wanted Noah to". That was my mistake. Sorry.


-------
That don't make no sense foo!
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 4:12 PM on March 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The begining of evolution by different scientist before darwin came or even during  do the same things that creationists do. They do not believe or want to believe a God but why? Because if there is a God then That God would be in controll. Creationists believe in a God whether it is the God of the bible or another God and try to serve Him.


Both try to prove thier theory (which there is no 100% solid evidence for iether cause history cannot be tested)
they both use science to try to prove it
they are both theorys
No one was there when it happened so they both cannot be proven as a fact.
It is a matter of opinion and beliefe


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:23 PM on March 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The so-called "theory" of creationism does not state, and I quote:

Goddidit! "POOF" It's magic!


Yeah, basically it does.   Creationists give no mechanism by which God creates.

The fact that there are shells on Mount Everest to me is evidence that there was a flood. But that's not the primary evidence.


The shells are in strata WITHIN mountains, not sitting on top of them.

To me the great flood makes total sense, especially versus the theory of this meteor. It explains everything:

No, it really doesn't.  A global flood is incompatible with the fossil record and geology.



Both try to prove thier theory (which there is no 100% solid evidence for iether cause history cannot be tested)
they both use science to try to prove it
they are both theorys
No one was there when it happened so they both cannot be proven as a fact.


Ridiculous.  Creationists do not use science or the scientific method.  Creationism is not a scientific theory.  One does not have to be present during an event to know for a fact (or beyond a reasonable doubt) that it happened.  If that was true, we'd never be able to convict anyone without witnesses directly observing the crime.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:31 PM on April 1, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In response to Demon38: I understand where you're coming from. I do not take the bible word for word; for this some of my fellow creationists may not agree with me, but I believe that God is metaphoric. Therefore, what is seven days to god may be seven years to us, or seven thousand years, etc. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." But you'll notice it does not say much more than that - it's very vague. This means that the "non-creationist" theory of how the earth came to be could very well be true - making both theories true. Of course this is all a mere idea that I've contemplated.

Thank you.

Fair enough, DontMakeNoSenseFoo, and this is what the majority of the worlds Christians beleive.  If God did create the universe with the Big Bang, created and developed life through evolution, He didn't leave any evidence of his creation.  And of course God could do this.  My problem is with the fundamentalist who insist that the world was created 6000 years ago and evolution does not take place.  All the evidence clearly shows they are wrong.  They really are a tiny minority, a lunatic fringe, whining against established scientific theory.
And thank you for taking the time to be civil in your post, it is much appreciated.  I'll try to respond in kind.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:28 PM on April 3, 2003 | 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.