drdino.com: Creation Science Evangelism

[Hellbender]

ah ok, thanks for the info.

[juslikecandi]

Number one, Im a girl, two, I did learn all this is biology.Kent Hovind still has the evidence that is scientifically correct and much of it proven, regardless of his education, which seems to be perfectly adequate, if not then his education is beyond even that. It seems to me that the length of his education doesn't matter as much as the education himself, which is so proving evolution wrong. You guys try to look around it, but just look at it- the evidence, i mean. Tell me if these evidences aren't enough, please, have fun losing this debate, or please please please correct me if this is wrong, instead of ignoring it, so I can ask some one else about it( simply said, I'd almost be siding with you) so here it is, abit long but worth it---Heres ur evidence;

 

Let’s start with population. Everyone today says that things are way too crowded, but they have no idea. If we take the rate at which population increases and apply it backwards to three hundred million years ago when humans started , according to evolution, and bring it back to today, there would be one-hundred and sixty thousand people per square inch. In we inverse the equation we used to figure out the rate of today’s population increase back to a few people, our population today must have grown from only about four thousand and four hundred years ago. Hey, wait, that’s when Noah’s flood , recorded in the word of the Creator, occurred. It would make sense that we came from about eight people, Noah’s family. Not good enough for you? Okay, lets talk about the galaxy then. Saturn’s rings are slowly moving away from it. Going by the rate they move at now and applying it to millions of years ago and bringing it back, Saturn’s rings would be way, way farther away from it by now. It’s a lot like how it is with our moon. It’s moving farther away from earth, that means that , going by evolution’s timeline, The moon was grazing earth, as in hitting people’s heads, they have this theory and then they wonder what happened to the dinosaurs? But also, our moon would be farther from us then it is now if earth was millions of years old. This is also like the earth’s magnetism. It’s getting weaker, and by the evolutionary timeline must have been unbearably strong, and would have been pathetically weak by now. Did you know that comets die after around a thousand years? Well, okay, so why do we have them now? James Oort came up with a theory that there is a Oort cloud fifty thousand years astronomical years away that they come from. From the sun to earth is one astronomical unit. From the sun to Pluto is thirty astronomical units. Do we see Pluto? Not really, so how can we see a cloud fifty thousand of them away? Not even Oort saw it. And then, he says okay, well prove it’s not true. So I can say there’s a huge pink clown tons of astronomical units away and its true because you can’t prove it wrong? Same thing, different objects. How much evidence that you’ve heard from evolutionists is obtained by carbon dating? It’s not accurate. It only goes back about three thousand years, accurately anyway. By carbon dating, one part of the same preserved animal was tested to be about thirty thousand years old, and another forty-four thousand! How about deserts, like the Sahara? They grow, if earth was as old as evolutionists say it is, then all of Africa would be a huge desert by now. Okay, another question, who’s heard of Pangea, the huge landmass combined of all of our continents that existed millions of years ago or more? Well they forgot to leave Africa in it’s current size, and to include all of Central America . Let’s go on to oil! It’s formed by crushed animals and people, along with other materials. We have tons of oil. Maybe it was formed my the drowning creatures in Noah’s flood and squashed down by the water pressure, considering there was so much water it covered way over the tops of the highest mountains, like Mount Everest. Evolutionists also have drilled holes in ice, large ones and saved it. They found layers of white and clear ice on it, and claimed they were annual rings, one-hundred and thirty five thousand of them and they‘ve dug around ten-thousand feet down. So this proved the young earth creation theory wrong, right? No, it didn’t, there was a lost squadron two-hundred and sixty three feet down and the rings on ice hole from the squadron dig were more then the ten-thousand foot one. Obviously the layers were just hot and cold spells, not whole seasons or even years, for that matter. There have also been found a fish having a baby and, also a cowboy boot with the foot still in it. These show that a quick catastrophe must have happened, like Noah’s flood for example. There was also a dog found petrified in a tree. The oldest tree is four-thousand and four hundred years old , which is right after the flood happened, since the tree clearly could not have survived during the flood. Also, the largest reef is the same age. If Earth was so many millions of years old, then we would have a way bigger reef. And, how about ocean water? It gets progressively saltier, and would be much more salty if the earth was millions of years old. What about Niagara falls? It moves backward more and more each year, and if the earth was as old as evolutionists say, than it would be farther backward. By the rate it has been going at now, It must have started around forty-four hundred years ago…when the flood ended. Evolutionists claim stalagmites and stalactites take a thousand years to grow one inch. Hmm… is that why they form over three inches in one night on cars? Not to mention the many more that grow at a severely quicker rate than evolutionists say in very many places. There is also the Iraqi water ripple, caused by a really large flood. Noah’s certainly explains that. Also, pre-flood conditions, ( this is proven today ) some things grew to way over twenty-five times as large as they are now, plants, animals, and people. It also allowed them to live longer.

[juslikecandi]

how about this

 

i believe that' date=' according to science, modern humans have only been around for approximately 200,000 years. not millions. any yes, even a cursory look at population dynamics shows that the rate of population growth [i']can[/i] dramatically change. it is the product of both reproduction rate and death rate. if the death rate drops (as has been the case in recent times in the advanced nations due to inprovements in living standards, diet, medicine etc) it takes a while for the rate of reproduction to drop into line, and a huge population boom ensues. there is no reason to believe that the population increase has always been at this rate. anyway, the same argument (were it true) could be applied to the theory of creationism. actually, it could be applied more so to creationism, due to the fact that science claims that modern humans have been around for aprox. 200,000 years, whereas i believe creationism maintains humanity has been around for millions of years, thus making the argument (were it true) more applicable to creationism. unless your a young-earth creationist.

 

exactly the same argument could be applied to the theory of creationism.

 

OMFG! a creationist with evidence. that must be a first. no seriously, im genuinely not trying to extract the urine from you, its just that most creationists turn up and go "evolution is bull: iv got this book, you see...". if you genuinely have evidence, please share it.

 

::EDIT:: hellbenders right: as you're arguing against a theory which is accepted by most as having been proven sound, the burdon of supplying proof to your conrary claims lies with you ::EDIT::

 

may i sujjest (based purely on my previouse experience with creationists) that you aquaint yourself with these common logical errors/errors in accepting something as 'evidence'.

 

 

as u said later on, well you were right and scientifical is not a word.. mayb I meant scientific, wutever you knew what I meant. Anyway, the link you gave me was good. I don't think I can go against it rite now, but mayb a little later when I find out. BUT, don't think everything else I say is wrong because I messed up once, I'm sure you've messed up b4 and that doesn't make the rest of what you say wrong. So... I think there was something else I wanted to say in reply to you or hellbender, but I forget. However, thank you for the chromosome link, If possible, show me some more GOOD scientific evidence of your theory.

 

The chromosome link got boring so I stopped reading, I'll read it later, but the fallacy site seemed wrong in some spots and kinda sucked. sry!

[Hellbender]

Number one, Im a girl, two,

I apologize for the confusion then.

I did learn all this is biology.

What is your school's website?

Kent Hovind still has the evidence that is scientifically correct and much of it proven, regardless of his education, which seems to be perfectly adequate, if not then his education is beyond even that.

First of all, Hovind's education is not adequate. He basically has no education, apart from High school, as far as I, and the scientific community is concerned. Lets get off Hovind. He is an embarassment even to other creationist. Second, I am an ardent anti-YEC, and I have researched Hovind, been to his website, and critically evaluated his claims on my own. I have a lot of knowledge in paleontology, and biology in general and I can say that his claims are completely irrational to the point of being downright silly. Please back up your claims that his evidence is proven, instead of merely stating as such. The burden of proof is on you.

It seems to me that the length of his education doesn't matter as much as the education himself, which is so proving evolution wrong.

Translation: "His education on the matter, and the fact that he knows nothing about what he claims to be so educated in doesn't matter to me because he says things that I agree with." If you want to overturn a theory that has withstood more than a century of scientific scrutiny, which is every year getting more and more evidence to support it, being a real PhD might be a good start at doing so.

You guys try to look around it, but just look at it- the evidence, i mean.

A lot of us here are scientists, aspiring scientists, or have a strong interest in science. Evaluating evidence is what we do; the fact that we naturally promote theories supported by evidence that don't coincide with your preconcieved religious notions doesn't mean that we are sticking our head in the sand. In other words, the "evidence" for biblical creation has been evaluated, and it is false.

Tell me if these evidences aren't enough, please, have fun losing this debate, or please please please correct me if this is wrong, instead of ignoring it, so I can ask some one else about it( simply said, I'd almost be siding with you) so here it is, abit long but worth it---Heres ur evidence;

Okay, now we are off to a good start.

Let’s start with population. Everyone today says that things are way too crowded, but they have no idea. If we take the rate at which population increases and apply it backwards to three hundred million years ago when humans started , according to evolution, and bring it back to today, there would be one-hundred and sixty thousand people per square inch. In we inverse the equation we used to figure out the rate of today’s population increase back to a few people, our population today must have grown from only about four thousand and four hundred years ago.

This point was already dealt with by me, and much better by Dak.

Hey, wait, that’s when Noah’s flood , recorded in the word of the Creator, occurred. It would make sense that we came from about eight people, Noah’s family. Not good enough for you?

Please, besides the fact that a global flood is impossible, we know this is not the case. See above.

Okay, lets talk about the galaxy then. Saturn’s rings are slowly moving away from it.

They are? Someone else with more extensive knowledge on this, want to help me?

Going by the rate they move at now and applying it to millions of years ago and bringing it back, Saturn’s rings would be way, way farther away from it by now. It’s a lot like how it is with our moon. It’s moving farther away from earth, that means that , going by evolution’s timeline, The moon was grazing earth, as in hitting people’s heads, they have this theory and then they wonder what happened to the dinosaurs?

So how did the moon magically get back to where it is now? And you believe that our species was contemporeous (sp) with the dinosaurs (something supported by no evidence), then why weren't we supposedly killed by the moon too?

But also, our moon would be farther from us then it is now if earth was millions of years old. This is also like the earth’s magnetism. It’s getting weaker, and by the evolutionary timeline must have been unbearably strong, and would have been pathetically weak by now.

Wait, so gravity gets weaker over time now?

Did you know that comets die after around a thousand years? Well, okay, so why do we have them now?

Simple; there aren't a set number of comets in our solar system. We don't know how many there are, and it is completely possible that new ones come from somewhere in the universe every once and a while for us to see.

James Oort came up with a theory that there is a Oort cloud fifty thousand years astronomical years away that they come from. From the sun to earth is one astronomical unit. From the sun to Pluto is thirty astronomical units. Do we see Pluto? Not really, so how can we see a cloud fifty thousand of them away? Not even Oort saw it. And then, he says okay, well prove it’s not true. So I can say there’s a huge pink clown tons of astronomical units away and its true because you can’t prove it wrong?

I find the idea of a YEC who finds the Argmentum ad Ignorantium fallacy distateful extremely ironic.

Same thing, different objects. How much evidence that you’ve heard from evolutionists is obtained by carbon dating? It’s not accurate.

First off, it is accurate, and second, it is not the only dating method scientists use.

It only goes back about three thousand years, accurately anyway. By carbon dating, one part of the same preserved animal was tested to be about thirty thousand years old, and another forty-four thousand!

They aren't 100% accurate, but they come very close. Such mistakes such as this come about by creationists deliberately applying the dating technique in a imcompetant manner.

 

How about deserts, like the Sahara? They grow, if earth was as old as evolutionists say it is, then all of Africa would be a huge desert by now.

The Sahara hasn't always been a desert, for one. Second, I was not aware of the fact that deserts constantly grow.

Okay, another question, who’s heard of Pangea, the huge landmass combined of all of our continents that existed millions of years ago or more? Well they forgot to leave Africa in it’s current size, and to include all of Central America.

Not true.

Let’s go on to oil! It’s formed by crushed animals and people, along with other materials. We have tons of oil. Maybe it was formed my the drowning creatures in Noah’s flood and squashed down by the water pressure, considering there was so much water it covered way over the tops of the highest mountains, like Mount Everest.

Evidence? The existance of oil and how it is formed is perfectly explainable by science. The fact that you need to throw tired old bible stories into the equation changes nothing.

 

I could continue, and probably will, but I don't know if there is limits on post size, and I am tired.

[Hellbender]

as u said later on, well you were right and scientifical is not a word.. mayb I meant scientific, wutever you knew what I meant.

we did, but we were just having a laugh. Sorry.

BUT, don't think everything else I say is wrong because I messed up once, I'm sure you've messed up b4 and that doesn't make the rest of what you say wrong.

I will remember you said this.

So... I think there was something else I wanted to say in reply to you or hellbender, but I forget.

Whenever you remember, we will be here.

However, thank you for the chromosome link, If possible, show me some more GOOD scientific evidence of your theory.

Talkorigins has some good stuff.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 

The faq is a good place to start. After you read that try this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The chromosome link got boring so I stopped reading, I'll read it later, but the fallacy site seemed wrong in some spots and kinda sucked. sry!

OKay here's another site to aimed at educating people about common and uncommon logical fallacies:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

[Dak]

Let’s start with population. Everyone today says that things are way too crowded, but they have no idea. If we take the rate at which population increases and apply it backwards to three hundred million years ago when humans started , according to evolution, and bring it back to today, there would be one-hundred and sixty thousand people per square inch.

i believe that' date=' according to science, modern humans have only been around for approximately 200,000 years. not millions. any yes, even a cursory look at population dynamics shows that the rate of population growth can dramatically change. it is the product of both reproduction rate and death rate. if the death rate drops (as has been the case in recent times in the advanced nations due to inprovements in living standards, diet, medicine etc) it takes a while for the rate of reproduction to drop into line, and a huge population boom ensues. there is no reason to believe that the population increase has always been at this rate. anyway, the same argument (were it true) could be applied to the theory of creationism. actually, it could be applied more so to creationism, due to the fact that science claims that modern humans have been around for aprox. 200,000 years, whereas i believe creationism maintains humanity has been around for millions of years, thus making the argument (were it true) more applicable to creationism. unless your a young-earth creationist.[/quote']

 

-----------

 

If we take the rate at which population increases and apply it backwards to three hundred million years ago when humans started , according to evolution, and bring it back to today, there would be one-hundred and sixty thousand people per square inch. In we inverse the equation we used to figure out the rate of today’s population increase back to a few people, our population today must have grown from only about four thousand and four hundred years ago. Hey, wait, that’s when Noah’s flood , recorded in the word of the Creator, occurred. It would make sense that we came from about eight people, Noah’s family

assuming no change in the rate of population growth, which is absurd.

 

Saturn’s rings are slowly moving away from it. Going by the rate they move at now and applying it to millions of years ago and bringing it back, Saturn’s rings would be way, way farther away from it by now. It’s a lot like how it is with our moon. It’s moving farther away from earth, that means that , going by evolution’s timeline, The moon was grazing earth, as in hitting people’s heads, they have this theory and then they wonder what happened to the dinosaurs? But also, our moon would be farther from us then it is now if earth was millions of years old. This is also like the earth’s magnetism. It’s getting weaker, and by the evolutionary timeline must have been unbearably strong, and would have been pathetically weak by now. Did you know that comets die after around a thousand years? Well, okay, so why do we have them now?

no, look. if something is changeing at rate x now, it does not follow that it has always been changeing at rate x. so none of your extrapolations are valid. in fact, S-curves are quite common in nature, whereby an initial change is slow, then followed by a rapid rate of change and culminating in another decrease of rate. example: population increase. so you cant extrapolate like that. plus, im not sure what the moon has to do with evolution?

 

What about Niagara falls? It moves backward more and more each year, and if the earth was as old as evolutionists say, than it would be farther backward.

1/niagra falls hasnt nesessaraly been around since the dawn of time, 2/it would be further back than where? how do you know where it started? 3/how did you reach the assumption that it should be further back? you need to tell us your logic, we wont just accept your assertations as accurate.

 

Evolutionists claim stalagmites and stalactites take a thousand years to grow one inch. Hmm… is that why they form over three inches in one night on cars?

icicles [math] \neq [/math] stalagtites.

 

sorry if i repeated hellbender at any point.

[Hellbender]

sorry if i repeated hellbender at any point.

hey, no actually you countered all the points that I couldn't/didn't feel like, and you countered the saturn rings point better than I could have. How did you know how to post the not equal to symbol? I am asking because I don't.

[Dak]

hey, no actually you countered all the points that I couldn't/didn't feel like, and you countered the saturn rings point better than I could have

ha! that was lucky then. both her post and yours were very long, and after reading hers i couldnt be bothered to read yours as i assumed thered be nothing in it that id disagree with. so the fact i didnt repeat you was lucky

 

How did you know how to post the not equal to symbol? I am asking because I don't.

as my edit line probably sujjests, it took a while to figure out (bloody latex). most the stuff in latex makes vague sence. a backslash prescedes a symbol, and the name of the symbol in usually logical (for innequity, its \neq (not equal). so i just tried a few possibilities (\ineq, \n=, \ne etc) till i got it.

 

the latex end tag is [/math], and the beggin tag is [math]

[In My Memory]

Hellbender

 

PS what does "lolly roffles" mean?

Its a convoluted way of writing LOLROTFL (laughing out loud, rolling on the floor laughing).

 

Its contrapositive is "roffle lollers".

 

This message brought to you by In My Memory, and your friends at Geeky-NerdCo.

 

 

 

Juslikecandi,

 

You think his test is crazy but you aren't taking it are you? None of you are. And his degree? You can get a nurses degree in two years. Oh, I know, two years and two weeks are different right? If lenght mattered alot of people wouldn't have sex. But they do and it's ok( inside of marriage) , and although Dr.Hovind got his degree fast, he still got it.

You've missed the point entirely: Hovind's PhD comes from a non-accredited degree mill. No accredited university in the nation or anywhere would even recognize that he has even post-highschool scientific credentials. The fact he obtained his degree quickly is an ancilliary kick in his credibility.

 

I dont know if you are familiar with exactly what degree mills are, but I've had experience with people claiming to be PhDs who really werent. For instance, I knew a woman who said she had a PhD, I remarked positively "oh, you are so young, what is your PhD in", and the woman replies to me "my PhD is in the study of human beings as transdimensional beings". I've also known people claiming to be PhDs in homeopathic medicine, shawmanism, and a whole host of new-agey things.

 

Okay. The challenge can't be won for one reason, macro evolution DID NOT happen!

What would convince you otherwise? What would convince Hovind otherwise? I have no idea what would qualify as "evidence", or even where to start.

 

Did you look at his evidences?

Yes I have. They are silly, and there is good reason why he is laughed out of academic circles - he's a crank, he isnt scientific, he has no credibility, thats it. His evidences are to biology what the book "The DaVinci Code" is to history - nothing that rouses any interests but conspiracy theorists and nutjobs. If it sounds like I'm being harsh, thats because I'm being honest.

 

I do in fact have a book in my bookshelf called "Scientific Creationism", authored by Henry M. Morris, copywritten in 1974 and 1985. What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with Kent Hovind's arguments?

 

How about the guy who refused to lok at the dino and human footprints inside of eachother? He refused to look because he knew it would hurt the evolution theory( and if you know what theory we're talking about then you can be quiet about all this. You people need him to specify? Gosh- haha napoleon dynamite, )

Hey, did you know even creationists are ashamed of Hovind? Take a look at AnswersInGenesis.com - Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use (this is catergorized under "Definitely do not use these"):

‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.

Seriously, Hovind's evidences are laughably awful even by Young Earth Creationist standards.

 

okay yeah so if you are going to be so biased about not looking at the evidence, you are the most wrong of all. Hovind has SO much evidence that is scientifically proved that you people should just give up! The population, it grows. If we had been growing at this rate since the millions of years humans had been here( according to the evolution theory) there would be 160 thousand people per sq. inch .

Did you know there is actually a little joke about this particular argument, it has to do with "Noahs bunnies". Now, if you think humans, being able to reproduce safely at 15 years of age at a rate of 1 human per year is impressive, consider that rabbits need only reproduce at the age of 5 months at a rate of 6 or 8 at a time! We should be overwhelmed by rabbits! After 53 years, there are more than 1.6 x 10^24 rabbits!!! (See Noah's bunnies.)

 

Or more considerably, do you have any idea how fast insects reproduce? Or how vastly insects outnumber human beings? If so, ask yourself how, by the logic you are probably referring to in your estimation of human population growth, it is possible that the earth is even older than 10 years without being up to the highest mountains in insects?

 

Hopefully, it occurs to you that it does no good to use extrapolations of population growth over the past 100 years or so to make inferences, and hopefully you understand the environmental factors which keep outrageous exponential growth in check.

 

[snipped inappropriate material']... Creationism wins by way over thirty evidences, scientifical, to one random guess. And those way over thirty? There's plentyplentyplenty more, that's just what I learned in Biology so far. EVOLUTION HAS NO FREAKING REAL SCIENTIFICAL PROOF. FIND SOME FOR ME PLEASE CUZ RITE NOW YOU MAKE NO SENSE WITH YOUR STUPID EVOLUTION THEORY

Transitional fossils. An easy example is to trace back the ancestory of cats and dogs, they meet at a point around 55 million years ago to a creature called "miacis", and they make an excellent documented example of Family-level evolution.

[In My Memory]

Hellbender,

 

hey, no actually you countered all the points that I couldn't/didn't feel like, and you countered the saturn rings point better than I could have.

Oh, I hope it isnt too late to post a link to:

How good are those young-earth arguments?

[Hellbender]

What would convince you otherwise? What would convince Hovind otherwise? I have no idea what would qualify as "evidence", or even where to start.

This is the question we all should ask in the first place, in every debate with creationists.

[Sayonara]

Typically you can expect to be asked for something banal that smacks of a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, like some sort of magical shark-donkey transitional fossil form.

[Hellbender]

Or be asked to go back into time and then sit there for millions of years to watch ardipithecus change into a human.

[Newtonian]

Transitional fossils. An easy example is to trace back the ancestory of cats and dogs' date=' they meet at a point around 55 million years ago to a creature called "miacis", and they make an excellent documented example of Family-level evolution.[/quote']

Unfortunately this example isnt easy in the slightest.The inference is totally hypothetical.The fossil record doesnt even tell us exactly when the dog lineage split off from the existing wolf branch.No one is certain how and were the wolf evolved,examining fossil sculls of the mammal miacis which showed the specialized teeth for eating meat 55my,and later a dog like mammal cynodictus.Then between 30-10my the appearence of the dewclaw(shortened fifth toe).All evidence linking them to Miacis is purely circumstancial.The very evident lack of empirical data is the whole argument.

 

What evidence we can be relatively sure about is all breeds of domestic dog are decended from a subspecies of domesticated wolf in China from anywhere between 10-200 thousand year ago.

In the Pleistocene 200-500 thousand years ago we see evidence of canis lupis chanco associated with homo erectus pekinesis but its arguable wether any domestication of the wolf was evident.

[swansont]

(judicious snipping)

Let’s start with population....Okay, lets talk about the galaxy then. Saturn’s rings ...our moon. It’s moving farther away...the earth’s magnetism. It’s getting weaker...Did you know that comets die after around a thousand years?...carbon dating? It’s not accurate. ...How about deserts, like the Sahara? They grow, if earth was as old as evolutionists say it is, then all of Africa would be a huge desert by now.... Also, the largest reef is the same age. If Earth was so many millions of years old, then we would have a way bigger reef. And, how about ocean water? It gets progressively saltier, and would be much more salty if the earth was millions of years old. What about Niagara falls? It moves backward more and more each year, and if the earth was as old as evolutionists say, than it would be farther backward. By the rate it has been going at now, It must have started around forty-four hundred years ago…when the flood ended.

 

You seem very fond of extrapolations. How tall were you when you were 1? 2? 3? If we extrapolate those numbers, how tall will you be (or were you) when you reach 30? 50?

 

There's a saying that applies to mathematical formulae (especially when applied with a computer):

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

Extrapolating without understanding the underlying principles is meaningless.

[juslikecandi]

Well, thank you all for the sites which I mostly read/looked over. I will present them to someone who should know the answers and tell you, as long as they don't say somethings retarded. Like, " oh well the Bible says.." I mean, I am a creationist and believe the Bible, but saying that doesn't help you guys, I mean if you dont believe in the Bible why would someone give you evidences from the Bible. So , yeah, thanx, the sites were mostly good and interesting. And hellbender, deserts do grow, a global flood is possible, carbon dating is not accurate- and if you take one thing and test it with some other dating methods scientists use then usually the dates come out dramatically different,and the pangea thing is true. In my memory, ur sites were good- the bunny one and young earth one, but I believe Hovind states what he means by evidence on his site. Oh yeah, and , lol this will make you think my education was biased but, my high school's Atlantic Christian. But b4 high school I went to public school, so I have heard ur side manny times. Personally tho- Atlantic Christian rocked, not just because it was a religious private school either. The religion part of the school barely affected my liking to it. Wow what a gr8 Christian I am. Theres definetely better. But yeah, Thanx evry1!

[Tetrahedrite]

For those of you who can remember, I think juslikecandi and WillowTree would get on swimmingly!

[juslikecandi]

Can I ask who willowtree is? Do I wanna kno who willowtree is?

 

P.S. I wouldn't say Im stupid just because I hold a different belief than some people.

[Dak]

P.S. I wouldn't say Im stupid just because I hold a different belief than some people.

i agree. justlikecandi seems perfectly sane. willow, on the otherhand, was a patent loony.

 

justlikecandi: some of your arguments are logically unsound, like the claim that niagra falls should be further back than it is and your use of extrapolation which is probably why tetra (erroniously) compared you to willow (who was also a creationist), however the differense between you and willow is that whereas some of your arguments are logically flawed, willow himself was logically flawed. we'd patiently explain something to him and hed come up with the most bizzare responses.

 

--------------

 

WILLOW: there arent many fossils -- if we really evolved from monkeys, surely fossils would be comming out of our ears

 

SOMEONEELSE: well, for something to become fossilised is quite rare -- and your argument could just as easaly be aplied to your own hypothesis: if humans have been around since a few days after the creation of the earth, why arent there more fossils?

 

besides, the existance of even a few fossils of ancient and phisiologically different humans tends to add weight to the theory of evolution, dont you think.

 

WILLOWTREE: strawman. failure to address my contention = failure to refute = attempt to change the subject to draw attention away from flaws in ToE = addmition that ToE is bull = god created the world.

 

SOMEONEELSE: ???

 

-------------

 

but no, your arguments may be the of the common logically-flawed creationist stock, but i think a comparison to willow was a tad unjust.

 

do you have any evidence to back up your claims by the way?

[swansont]

Can I ask who willowtree is? Do I wanna kno who willowtree is?

 

P.S. I wouldn't say Im stupid just because I hold a different belief than some people.

 

I think you'll find that you're not being called stupid' date=' though when your beliefs are questioned it may seem that way.

 

You are being called uninformed, which is different. Intelligence and knowledge, while related in some ways, are not the same thing. Statements like "[i']EVOLUTION HAS NO FREAKING REAL SCIENTIFICAL PROOF.[/i]" scream out that you have not studied evolution at all, and to so forcefully proclaim your ingorance is usually unwise.

 

One big objection is that you seem to have uncritically accepted some facts as being true, when in fact they aren't. One must differentiate facts and theories from beliefs, because facts can corroborated and theories make predictions and can be tested. Would you go to an atheist to learn about the Bible? Would you trust him or her to get things right? If no, why would you try and learn about evolution from a creationist?

 

The sad truth here is that you have been lied to. You can choose not to confirm the veracity of the information, which is intellectually dishonest, and you can choose to perpetuate the lies, which is just plain dishonest. Bearing false witness is a sin, is it not? Or you can actually look at the information and evaluate its validity.

 

Pick a "fact" or two at a time, and discuss them, and pay attention to the criticisms, and learn.

[In My Memory]

Can I ask who willowtree is? Do I wanna kno who willowtree is?

Essentially, Willowtree appears to be a heckler and conspiracy theorist.

 

Willowtree shows up all over forums on the internet (usually science and skeptical messageboards) posting extremely lengthy "proofs" of God. If you do a search on Google, apparently Willowtree has posts on IIDB.org, Eblaforum.com, Infidelguy.com, some MSN groups, AtheistRadio.com, EvCForum.net, AboveTopSecret.com, and various USENET groups including Talk.origins.

 

If you want to know what Willowtree is posting on all those boards, I recommend seeing a thread called alled Proof of God, in which he (she?) believed the slope of the pyramids was evidence of divine origin - on all the other boards, it appears that Willowtree rehashes the theories presented in that thread and posts them just about everywhere with a large enough audience.

 

Specifically, on whether Willowtree's theories are of any merit, I wrote two replies to Willowtree's thread, here and here - based strictly on the facts Willowtree has accepted as axiomatically true, I believe my short replies have falsified his theories.

 

In any case, his theories appear to have only the most tenuous logical continuity, but drastically contradict archaeology (and apologetics attempts seem to miff and cause conflict with other details in the bible). Willowtree does not believe this is actually a problem with the bible or his theories, instead he believes this is a problem with science and willful "ignorance" of atheists.

[Hellbender]

Well, thank you all for the sites which I mostly read/looked over. I will present them to someone who should know the answers and tell you, as long as they don't say somethings retarded. Like, " oh well the Bible says.." I mean, I am a creationist and believe the Bible, but saying that doesn't help you guys, I mean if you dont believe in the Bible why would someone give you evidences from the Bible.

Because the bible is exclusive to Christians, a group of which In My Memory and I are not a part of. Our evidence comes from real world studies, and we expect yours to as well, not from some book.

So , yeah, thanx, the sites were mostly good and interesting. And hellbender, deserts do grow, a global flood is possible, carbon dating is not accurate- and if you take one thing and test it with some other dating methods scientists use then usually the dates come out dramatically different,and the pangea thing is true.

Simply stating what you said before doesn't make for a strong argument. You told me the same thing twice and I am still not convinced. Come up with some evidence. Even if deserts do grow somehow, you are deliberately ignoring what I said about the Sahara not always being a desert. There is no evidence (other than your bible stories) that a global flood even happened, let alone possible. Most christians don't even think about the reality of this tale, its an obvious allegory. As for the carbon dating thing, scientists do their best, no they are not 100% accurate, but they come close enough, and when you are talking billions of years, a couple thousand off is chump change.

Oh yeah, and , lol this will make you think my education was biased but, my high school's Atlantic Christian.

Of course its biased! Why do you think I asked you for your school's website? I suspected that you conveniently left out that you go went to a private bible school, no other place will teach creationism as a part of it curriculum.

But b4 high school I went to public school, so I have heard ur side manny times.

So in other words, you want us to think your being a creationist has nothing to do with you going to a bible school, because you have heard "our side" before.

[Hellbender]

i agree. justlikecandi seems perfectly sane. willow, on the otherhand, was a patent loony.

I agree. You can't compare anyone to Willowtree, I can safely say he's nuts.

WILLOWTREE: strawman. failure to address my contention = failure to refute = attempt to change the subject to draw attention away from flaws in ToE = addmition that ToE is bull = god created the world.

OMG! this is good. His posting style always drove me nuts.

[fuhrerkeebs]

If we had been growing at this rate since the millions of years humans had been here( according to the evolution theory) there would be 160 thousand people per sq. inch

 

You do know that people die...right?

[swansont]

As for the carbon dating thing' date=' scientists do their best, no they are not 100% accurate, but they come close enough, and when you are talking billions of years, a couple thousand off is chump change.

[/quote']

 

Carbon dating is only good to about 50,000 years, but there are certainly other radiaoctive dating methods that cover different age ranges.

 

The thing about the "incorrect" C-14 tests are that the tests were performed in situations where C-14 dating is known to be invalid. The resrictions are well-known to anybody competent in science, and yet creationists ignore that and present the data anyway, which is dishonest.