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
     6 Day Creation was Possible
       just read...

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

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"It can't be the basics?  The quote you cut-n-pasted still didn't tell me how evolution has influenced medicine."

From here:Evomedicine

"Darwinian medicine helps us to understand
>Why treating some symptoms may neutralize our adaptive defenses (cough, pain, fever)
>Why has evolution not freed us from organisms that cause diseases (evolutionary arms race)?
>Why are some health problems worse today than in the past (heart disease, cancer - diseases of civilization)?
Darwinian medicine helps us to understand
>Why have genetic diseases not been eliminated by natural selection?
>Why does the evolutionary design of our bodies predispose us to certain illnesses (backaches)?"

There you go, here are a few ways the theory of evolution has influenced modern medicine.  

"I didn't say they disproved evolution, I just said Creationists invented them in reply to your quote of "[b]The previous poster had said that there are a number of educated scientists who believe in creation.  That is untrue..."

I was refering to those scientists involved in the life sciences, geology and astonomy, the people directly studying life and the origins of the Earth and universe.  These are the scientists that count, they are directly studying the evidence.  As I said about 99.8% of these experts accept evolution.  

As far as evidence for evolution, you made the claim that there was none.  You should know what this evidence is and be prepared to falsify it.  All you have done is ignore it so far.

Yes, I severly understated the amount of time it takes for mountains to form.  More like 100's of millions of years.  This directly contradicts creationist claims that the earth is only 6000 years old.  from here:Mountainformation

"The Earth's mountain ranges have various ages of formation. Parts of the Himalayas are relatively quite young. Mountain building in this region of the world began about 45 million years ago when the continental plates of India and Eurasia converged on each other. The Himalaya mountains are still actively being uplifted. The Appalachian belt is quite old. Mountain building in this region of the world started about 450 million years ago. Orogeny stopped in the Appalachians about 250 million years ago. The long passage of time without active uplift has allowed weathering and erosion to remove large amounts of bedrock from the Appalachians. These processes have also significantly lowered and rounded the peaks of the various mountains found in this belt. Mountain building episodes in the North American Cordillera have been occurring over a very long period of time and still continue today. Some sedimentary rocks in the Rocky Mountain range (located on the eastern edge of the North American Cordillera) date to over a billion years old."

The point about meteor impacts is that it takes the Earth's ecosphere 100's of thousands of years to recover from the massive collisions that are indicated by the giant craters on our planet.  If the Earth was only 6000 years old, there would be no civilization since it would take centuries to rebuild.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:32 AM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Ok, lets discuss one topic at a time.  You've mentioned mountains, fossils, grand canyon, archaeopteryx mountains, Noah's flood, etc.  I can explain each of these, but it would take quite a bit of posting for each one.  So please specify which topic you would like to discuss and we'll go with it."

Giving an explaination is easy, you have to be able to back up that explaination with evidence.  You have continually asked me to provide facts and yet you have provided no evidence to support any of your points so far.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:10 AM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In science..all things are possible.  While we cannot prove there are not aliens in your soup, to consider the possibility is a waste of time.  Much like it is possible that a six day genesis occurred, no evidence supports it, and mountains of evidence contradict it so strongly, that it is a waste of tme for a scientists to ponder ways in which it may have occurred. To believe in genesis as written, one must also believe god planted mountains of false evidence to trick us.  Believe what you like.

Skwanderer
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:09 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If Genesis 1 is a hymn, as we are told, why would we take the lyrics to a chorus as literal?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:36 PM on February 12, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who said Genesis was a hymn?
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 2:35 PM on February 14, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's what I was wondering.  What does genesis being a hymn have to do with this topic?
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 3:01 PM on February 14, 2004 | IP
Cameron Mott

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My Halley's Bible Commentary for one. Some describe Gen 1:1 thru 2:4a as narrative prose, some as poetry and some as the "Creation Hymn". Apparently the Hebrew has alliteration, parallelism, rhyming and what seems to me like a possible chorus in "and then there was evening, and then there was morning, the _ day". We may be torturing the meaning of words that are a literary device meant to be no more literal than the lyrics to "Muskrat Love" or "Casey At The Bat".
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 9:14 PM on February 14, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can someone tell me what this has to do with the topic?  
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 3:17 PM on February 15, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Umm, nothing.   I guess some people call it a "hymn" Ialthough I've never hears it sung.  he average non-biased person would call it an account of God making the universe.
By the way, in universe, "uni" means "single"; and "verse" means "a single spoken sentence".

So the word "universe" means "a single spoken sentence."   God said "let there be..."
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 3:42 PM on February 16, 2004 | IP
slpx

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 2:21 PM on May 26, 2003 :
Gabor, you're missing the point.

It's not that people need to have a degree to have credibility.   It's that Mr. Hovind went to a diploma mill to buy a degree so he can think that he does have credibility.




 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 2:04 PM on February 18, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So the word "universe" means "a single spoken sentence."   God said "let there be..."

Just to set the record straight, that is not the derivation of universe....From here:dictionary

"universe - 1589, "the whole world, cosmos," from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neut. of universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn." "

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:19 AM on February 24, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, in universe, "uni" means "single"; and "verse" means "a single spoken sentence".

So the word "universe" means "a single spoken sentence."


Hovind strikes again!  Do any of the morons who quote his stuff actually read it?  This is the same guy who thinks the NWO is going to kill 5.5 billion people in the next year or two as part of their plan to take over the world.     This is the guy who thinks big brother watches you through your TV.  This is the guy who advocates killing people of middle east descent and beating your children.  And this is the guy you're getting your information from?  Ignorance is one thing, but outright stupidity is just pathetic


-------
"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: 07:07 AM on March 1, 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.