Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 91
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,761
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    9
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    9
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    26777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Insein View Post
    Evolution has some evidence to prove that its possible. IT doesnt make it true. It just makes it possible. Creationism doesn't have any evidence that its more then just a good story.

    That is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in a long time...

    Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

    The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

    What your problem is - and others duped into thinking we came from apes, yet still cannot explain who or what Created the Universe - is that when present a different interpetation of the facts, you immediately go on the attack and don't even look at an opposing view..
    Last edited by -Cp; 01-21-2007 at 12:25 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,852
    Thanks (Given)
    804
    Thanks (Received)
    725
    Likes (Given)
    1232
    Likes (Received)
    883
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Cp View Post
    ...

    What your problem is - and others duped into thinking we were Created, yet still cannot explain who or what Created the Universe - is that when presented a different interpetation of the facts, you immediately go on the Defensive and don't even look at an opposing view..
    Fixed it for ya, CP.
    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION




    Above the Best



    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks (Given)
    34
    Thanks (Received)
    59
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    835974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Cp View Post
    You may want to read this (not that you will) but..... The Isotope system is highly debatable....

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...adioactive.asp
    Perhaps you can point out exactly where Zheng concludes that based on his findings isochronic dating is totally unreliable or that the world is only 6000 years old.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Here, there and everywhere
    Posts
    630
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Cp View Post
    The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions..

    Uh-uh. A fact is a fact. Either the Earth revolves around the sun or it doesn't.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Here, there and everywhere
    Posts
    630
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    A few things, namely, 'evolution' doesn't make sense. It's not scientific - or if it IS, it's much more speculation than anything else. Creationism 'makes sense' - it's logical and IMO, there exists MUCH more 'proof' of Intelligent Design than the 'Random dumb luck' Evolutionists preach.
    Of course evolution is a science. It is proven - at least at a micro level - that mutation/evolution occurs. There is absolutely no evidence of ID - only faith, just like god. There is nothing random about evolution. It is thought to happen over a long period time. If anything is random "luck" it's the creationist version of the world...

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    O-hi-o
    Posts
    12,192
    Thanks (Given)
    8017
    Thanks (Received)
    1650
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3656134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Cp View Post
    You may want to read this (not that you will) but..... The Isotope system is highly debatable....

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...adioactive.asp
    I was waiting for the isotope part to be brought up. More junk science.

    One thing I do not understand is the insessive need of the creationist to prove their belief's through junk science rather than just say they believe something and let it go at that. You either believe in Santa Claus or you don't. Is it necessary to prove his existance through twisting facts?

    The isotope story is another example of twisting real facts to suit the goal.
    When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.

    You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    O-hi-o
    Posts
    12,192
    Thanks (Given)
    8017
    Thanks (Received)
    1650
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3656134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grumplestillskin View Post
    Of course evolution is a science. It is proven - at least at a micro level - that mutation/evolution occurs. There is absolutely no evidence of ID - only faith, just like god. There is nothing random about evolution. It is thought to happen over a long period time. If anything is random "luck" it's the creationist version of the world...
    Evolutions occurs everytime a germ or virus developes a new immunity to a vacine. Everytime a flu bug changes to be deadly to more than one species. It goes on at a micro level all the time. It can't be observed on the higher levels because of the time involved. Thousands and millions of years. We don't live long enough to measure these changes.

    Civilization has evolved. From tribes to monarchies, from monarchies to democracies. Everything changes and evolves. Even christianity has evolved. From one man preachings to world wide churches. Evolution is the slow process of change.
    When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.

    You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    49,579
    Thanks (Given)
    36105
    Thanks (Received)
    27789
    Likes (Given)
    3460
    Likes (Received)
    11179
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Cp View Post
    Some state the "earth is billions of years old" as if it was somehow fact... I find that notion a bit silly....

    If you believe it's that old, why so when so much of the evidence we have points to a young Earth?
    The Earth is 47 years and 30 days old. Anything before that is irrelevant.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,852
    Thanks (Given)
    804
    Thanks (Received)
    725
    Likes (Given)
    1232
    Likes (Received)
    883
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    The Earth is 47 years and 30 days old. Anything before that is irrelevant.
    You're not calling your parents which you evolved from irrelevant, are you?
    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION




    Above the Best



    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    49,579
    Thanks (Given)
    36105
    Thanks (Received)
    27789
    Likes (Given)
    3460
    Likes (Received)
    11179
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. P View Post
    You're not calling your parents which you evolved from irrelevant, are you?
    Well, since you ask, they came from another planet ..... we're the ones RWA has been looking for!!!
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    20197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Cp View Post
    You may want to read this (not that you will) but..... The Isotope system is highly debatable....

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...adioactive.asp
    Who's the one with the bias here? I read it. So what the article is telling me is that i should believe their assumptions over the other guys assumptions and that therefore proves that creationism is correct? I'm sorry but thats a flimsy base to start a science on. Religion maybe, but science I'm sorry no.

    Creationism's argument is that all human science that has been tested and retested and will go on being tested is 100% wrong. That there isnt a sun 8.5 light minutes away from our planet. That this planet doesn't revolve around it. That everything revolves around this insignificant rock. That the theory of light speed is all wrong. That the universe is merely a painted backdrop to our blessed existence. There is nothing out there then. We are supposed to believe, Without ANY scientific reasoning that the universe was created 6000 years ago for us and us alone. How arogant and IGNORANT is that?

    As others have stated, the Chinese civilization has been documented to be around for 5000 years. So god simply made the universe 1000 years before the chinese' oldest KNOWN writing? Did China not exist before this writing that we found or are we to limit ourselves in science to only what is written down? 10,000 years from now, if the only known writings were of ramblings by liberal idiots like Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton and other tools, would they find that civilization began in the year 2000 and that the savior is 350lbs and wheres a baseball hat and never shaves?

    You can have your religious theory, you can have your beliefs but don't tell me the sky is purple when i can plainly see that its blue. I may not know how its blue exactly but i have a pretty good idea that it is indeed blue and not purple.
    "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

    "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them." - Obiwan Kenobi

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    20197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Cp View Post
    That is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in a long time...

    Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

    The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

    What your problem is - and others duped into thinking we came from apes, yet still cannot explain who or what Created the Universe - is that when present a different interpetation of the facts, you immediately go on the attack and don't even look at an opposing view..

    And for the record, i dont believe we came from apes. We are homo-sapiens. We are a race that came forth about 10,000 years ago. We are different from cromagden and neanderthal. Just like many races of birds exist and then die out but are not directly related to one another, we to came from somewhere. If you were smart, you'd try to explain that as god and not try to shove this ridiculous notion that the universe is only 6000 years old.

    I believe there is a god. But he's not this all loving being everyone makes him out to be. He is more of a scientist running an experiment in my eyes. Kind of like the Q from star trek. My opinion on the matter is that god flicked a switch (big bang) trillions of years ago and wanted to see what would happen. So he's still gathering data.

    The true mark of ignorance is discrediting someone elses views and opinions and calling that discrediting the proof that their view is right.
    "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

    "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them." - Obiwan Kenobi

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,761
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    9
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    9
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    26777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
    Perhaps you can point out exactly where Zheng concludes that based on his findings isochronic dating is totally unreliable or that the world is only 6000 years old.
    Zheng, Y.-F., 1986. Crust-mantle Rb-Sr mixing isochron and its geological significance. Terra Cognita, vol. 6, p. 151 (abstract).

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks (Given)
    34
    Thanks (Received)
    59
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    835974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Cp View Post
    Zheng, Y.-F., 1986. Crust-mantle Rb-Sr mixing isochron and its geological significance. Terra Cognita, vol. 6, p. 151 (abstract).
    He wrote this:
    ‘As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system.’9

    I'll ask again, where does he state that isochronic dating is totally unreliable and the earth is only 6000 years old?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,852
    Thanks (Given)
    804
    Thanks (Received)
    725
    Likes (Given)
    1232
    Likes (Received)
    883
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
    He wrote this:
    ‘As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system.’9

    I'll ask again, where does he state that isochronic dating is totally unreliable and the earth is only 6000 years old?
    Would you please just get with the damn program, open yer ears! Listen for the ‘THUMP”, that’s the PROOF, all the proof and nothing but the PROOF! Damn you NON-sheeples!
    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION




    Above the Best



    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums