Based on the evidence I have studied from both sides, creation and evolution I have come to the conclusion that evolution dogma should be used only for wiping crusty bung.
The idea that life evolved because gross organisms look similar and there has been some philosophizing of what would have evolved into what (phylogenic hierarchy tree of life) is completely outrageous and unscientific.
Age of the Earth, evidence for evolution- radiometric dating, geologic column, fantastical fantasies.
radiometric dating assumes too much and discounts theories to explain the numbers in creationist terms.
geologic column is so hilarious. roflmao.
fantasy- what evolutionists think and then speak and then categorize as science.
the few I read disgusted me due to the lack of debate prowess and ignorance presented mainly by the creation minded.
The post I'm replying to is nothing more than an argument of incredulity. You complained about the lack of debating prowess of other creos. You are worse than several creos here.
Where is your evidence that:
radiometric dating assumes too much
geologic column is so hilarious
The idea that life evolved . . .is completely outrageous and unscientific
See, in debates here, we ask for evidence to support one's assertions. Further, as I mentioned previously, you've used the fallacy of an argument of incredulity. (hint: when you claimed evolution is outrageous).
Oh, and please do try to separate biology from geology and both of those from physics. radiometric dating is not evidence for the ToE. Neither is the geologic column.
Funny, you claiming that other creos debated poorly. Or do you think that this post of yours is actually of a higher caliber?
There are any number of threads on radiometric dating, the age of the earth, the geologic column, etc.
By searching radiometric, I found the following open forums:
Geology- working up from basic principles. Was there a worldwide flood? Radioactive carbon dating Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) The dating game 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood Evolution vs. Creation Interpretations (Jazzns, nemesis_juggernaut) (NOW OPEN TO ALL) Destruction of Pompei is 1631 year. Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 Dating methodology for the Vishnu Schist Feedback about reliability of dating How the geo strata are identified as time periods Incompatibility of Geology with YEC How the geo strata are identified as time periods Young-earth theories Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution? Undermining long-held paradigms The great breadths of time.
Hell. There's a science forum called Dates and Dating.
Why don't you jump right in and prove alla us evil-utionists wrong?
Whilst reading many threads I have come to perhaps, a premature conclusion based on the review of the last few days. And that conclusion is that the majority of the users here and also the admins and mods are evolutionists.
This is true.
It is as if all the creationists have either deserted or been blasted away by the mighty power of the Law of Evolution. I have seen only 3 creationists post, and subsequently many evolutionist attack the poster with disdain and arrogance more fitting a small child.
Rather, I assume it because rhetoric doesn't work too well in a forum setting. You need evidence.
I however, did not come to read volumes of pages of previous debates and the few I read disgusted me due to the lack of debate prowess and ignorance presented mainly by the creation minded.
Aww, that's a shame. There are some real gems in those old threads. As for the creation minded being lacking in debate prowess, I would have to agree. In fact, this is one of the reasons for the creationists being so rare - they get banned because they can't debate sensibly and rationally, while following the few rules this site has.
The lack of warmth and obvious monopoly coupled with the arrogance I since in every post leads me to the conclusion that this site is more an evolutionary think tank and not a open forum debate.
It is getting that way, yes. It's supposed to be a debate forum, but it is sliding towards complete one-sidedness. This doesn't suprise me for the same reasons as it may you, as I believe that evolution is the only acceptable scientific view. But it is a concern.
There is certainly a sense of arrogance in many of the evolutionists here. They've just had these debates so many times that they're getting tired and need a nap. :p Try to forgive them.
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
Hi, Dod, I think part of the problem is that the same old material gets re-cycled every few months. We need attacks on new slants, fresh insights from the opposition, different approaches to previous topics. IOW, what we need is an articulate, informed creationist. And friends. However, when the indefatigable Damien Mackey turns up, his religious position get questioned. I`m not supporting him just because he`s an Aussie. (o.k., I AM supporting him because he`s an Aussie :D) Still he looks to have covered his subject matter in depth. I know his opening posts read like the first half of War and Peace, but give the lad a chance. AICs are getting thin on the ground.
Jar asked you to present supporting arguments for creation. You respond with arguments against evolution.
Even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't automatically make creationism right. If you want to build a case for creationism, you'll have to present supporting evidence.
This has been attempted (not very succesfully) in this thread. If you have anything new, start a thread!
I had been lurking here for ages before I finally registered, and even now I'm wary of posting. Some people here are very well informed and have had these discussions many times before. The tone can be intimidating, but if you have genuine arguments and obey the rules, you can have fruitful debates.
To Vashgun: Any member may participate in any discussion in any discussion thread, with few exceptions. This thread is one of them. This is not a discussion thread. It is a "short questions" thread, as in "What's the value of pi?", "3.14!", "Thanks." This thread was created so that people with simple questions don't have to begin new threads that end up being only a few messages long.
My suggestion to you, Vashgun, is to peruse the recent threads in the discussion forums and begin participating in a couple that are interesting to you.
To everyone, a short question: Why is there a discussion taking place in the "short questions" thread?