Comments | ill_be_ur_pal: Creationist vs Logic, errr, Geologist

ill_be_ur_pal

Creationist vs Logic, errr, Geologist

Oct 09, 2006 11:41

In the perfect forum of a debate on evolution, Noah's flood, and geology, by which this forum is a fantasy football message board, came my friend's Steve hypothesis that Noah's flood was caused by the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. He also took a critical view on geologist. So I relayed the post to my geology friend Tim(Fridge) who is also a ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

Response anonymous October 9 2006, 20:05:05 UTC

Excellent, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll do my best to hit on all of your questions / comments ( ... )

Re: Response 2 anonymous October 9 2006, 20:06:35 UTC

"5 Just like with evolution, there is no great scientific debate on the subject of radiometric dating. Some scientists might have debate various points on the subject, but it is not debated whether evolution takes place and it is not debated whether radiometric dating can provide good estimates on the dates of various objects ( ... )

Re: I really should have proofread anonymous October 9 2006, 20:51:57 UTC

In addition to the poor spelling, I need to correct a sentence. In regards to speciation being proven but not one species evolving into another, I meant to say one species eveolving into a new species that would then be catogorized in a different family.

Re: Response 2 anonymous October 10 2006, 23:32:20 UTC

I did not say that evolution was fact. The theory of evolution is just like all other scientific theories which seek to explain natural phenomena. One FACT that this theory is based of off is that the fossil record does not show a consistent biota over time. Now if you refuse to believe that fossils represent the remains of once living creature, you’ll obviously dismiss the rest. Darwin’s mechanism for producing different creatures might not be right, but something must produced the observed differences unless they just *poof* came to be there ( ... )

Re: Response 3 anonymous October 9 2006, 20:07:48 UTC

"Plus the water would not have simply splashed up and done, the event you have described would vaporize a great deal of that water ( ... )

Re: Response 3 anonymous October 10 2006, 23:33:24 UTC

“Vaporized as in flash boiled? The water that wouldn't come splashing down would have aggregated in clouds, resulting in an extended period of rain. It all fits together.” Please tell me this is there for comedic effect. Okay let’s say it all rained back down; you’re still forgetting a good old mass balance. How do you flood the world with the amount of water that currently exists? You simply can’t. Your event used the given amount of water, not new resources ( ... )

Re: Response 4 anonymous October 9 2006, 20:08:40 UTC

"Your belief is in an act that transcends natural law and thus we can never prove one way or the other whether or not it happened"

Exactly, just like Darwin's theory of evolution, or any other explanation for the creation of life on earth - or even the creation of earth itself. We will never be able to prove one of these explanations, we can only go on what information is available to use. Again, I feel there is more sound information to back up an explanation like mine than there is for Darwin's. The only assumption needed to be made in mine is that there is a God and he created initial life. The events thereafter all fit in with estabished science. Darwin's is based on multiple assumptions, many of which I find to be larger in scale than believing in a creator.

I'd be glad to hear any more points or counterpoints you have.

Re: Response 4 anonymous October 10 2006, 23:34:33 UTC

“"Your belief is in an act that transcends natural law and thus we can never prove one way or the other whether or not it happened ( ... )

Re: Response Spelling anonymous October 9 2006, 20:48:02 UTC

Please excuse my poor spelling throughout.

Brian, I don't even want to know why you have jizz all over your face in that picture.

Re: Response Spelling anonymous October 10 2006, 23:35:45 UTC

Well it looks like we at least agree on one thing. :)

Re: Response ill_be_ur_pal October 10 2006, 16:56:04 UTC

"Two responses to this. First, what may be commonly accepted as scientific fact is constantly re-evaluated - to think we have a correct and complete understanding of how old the earth is or how it formed would be premature. We used to think the world was flat, we used to think the sub revolved around us, and we used to think the way to treat blood born diseases was to drain people of their blood. Just because the science currently established leads you to believe in one theory doesn't mean that God meant to lead you to believe that, it just means that that is what has been currently accepted. Under this logic, every initial and incomplete discovery would have to be absolutely correct because we were "lead" to discover it ( ... )

Re: Brian anonymous October 11 2006, 14:52:52 UTC

"Proving anything as fact is impossible and some doubt should always exist in anything in science or life ( ... )

Re: Brian ill_be_ur_pal October 12 2006, 01:44:14 UTC

""Proving anything as fact is impossible and some doubt should always exist in anything in science or life"

Well that's not true - I think you worded that one a bit too liberally."

Good come, "not true". You should refer to that quote from Decartes that you totally butchered, "i think, therefore i am." It means that the only thing you can be sure about is yourself, because you can think, everything else can be false. IE Alice+Wonderland that we could all be in an alien's dream/lsd trip. Or more modern, Matrix style jack in the back of your head false reality. Besides MY own existence, you can not prove anything. You and your king(christians) thrive on this. You use faith(ie i can believe what i want) to justify things in the absence of logic. EVERYTHING can be doubted.

Re: Brian ill_be_ur_pal October 12 2006, 01:55:39 UTC

Jesus is not proven to exist, many, many sources debate this issue. How do yo know he exists? How do you know that his body was even in that cave? If he did exist, he never said that he was or was the son of god, all those verses have been proven forged. And Christianity did not spread rapidly, it was over 300 years when Emperor Constantine became Christian and then made it a privileged religion in Rome that it took off. Then it spread by the sword.

Are you telling me that in more modern times with religions started by convicted con artists (Mormons) and a sci fi writer(scientology) that christianity couldnt have been fabricated?

Second, i don't believe in anything. I don't BELIEVE in evolution, but it is by far the most logical conclusion we have and it has my bet. Ditto for why I think the Earth is billions of years old.

Re: Response anonymous October 10 2006, 23:30:55 UTC

The beliefs you list like flat world and blood letting are not science but are beliefs based on no good evidence and are closer then to creationism than geology ( ... )

Re: Response anonymous October 11 2006, 14:55:53 UTC

Tim, this is becoming nearly impossible to follow because of formatting. Is there anyway you can aggregate your responses into one post at the bottom of the page? I had to seperate mine into pieces because of the max allowable length of a post.

Back to all threads