Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 83 of 301 (433781)
11-12-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by dwise1
11-12-2007 9:21 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation

"I do agree that YHWH, AKA "The God of Truth", should not served through lies and deception.
T'is another deity to whom I refer. The Prince of Darkness who, I had been taught, is the one to be served through lies and deception. So when creationists employ their lies and deception, whom are they serving?

"
I agree with ever aspect of that, except for your stating satan as a prince and capitolizing his name. Capitolizing names is a way to show respect. I feel the need to show utter respect toward God, but none to satan, so I never capitolize satan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 9:21 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 10:16 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 86 of 301 (433786)
11-12-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Taz
11-12-2007 9:45 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I know this is a science forum, but I happen to believe that the Bible is historical. That if you dug deep enough around the Sinai Peninsula, you'd find Egyptian war equipment. That you will never find the body of Jesus, because there is no body to be found. I believe that a huge flood did cover the earth and alter its formations. Because I believe this, I will use the Bible in my evidence whenever I feel like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 9:45 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 10:04 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 89 by subbie, posted 11-12-2007 10:08 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 88 of 301 (433790)
11-12-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
11-12-2007 9:50 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation

"People accept evolution because that is what the evidence shows. It is NOT a matter of belief."

Wrong! Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, any cognitive content held as true.
Evolutionism is not, at the moment, a proven fact of our history and our past. Therefore, to hold it as truth requires belief. Therefore, you believe that evolutionism happened. You believe that this is a true thing. It takes belief to say 'this is true' without proving that it's a fact. It is a belief to say "I am an unproved cosmic coincadence of millions of years of evolution from a cell," not to say, "The earth is flat." You see, statement A is unproved, therefore requiring belief, statement B is proved, not requiring belief. Evolution is unproved, therefore it requires belief.
Also, why is it nonesense that nobody can prove what happened billions, millions, or even ten thousand years ago? Please elaborate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 9:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 10:24 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 95 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 10:26 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-14-2007 11:28 AM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 90 of 301 (433792)
11-12-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Taz
11-12-2007 10:04 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Yes, my mind is made up. There is a very small chance (I'm talking 1.00*10^-10000000%) of me changing my mind. However, I do want to know what people's arguments are. I'm here for the information. I want to be caught up in this debate, so I can understand what's going on. I debate to try and draw out more information. That is my goal, to understand. I'm in a school that doesn't teach evolution, so I'm wanting to know about it. I want to know both sides of the equation. That is why my debates seem to be half-hearted. I'm ill-informed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 10:04 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Vacate, posted 11-12-2007 10:27 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 100 by dwise1, posted 11-13-2007 4:05 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 102 by bluescat48, posted 11-14-2007 11:43 AM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 103 by dwise1, posted 11-14-2007 12:46 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2007 4:17 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 91 of 301 (433793)
11-12-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by subbie
11-12-2007 10:08 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Again, I want to know the arguments before I start arguing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by subbie, posted 11-12-2007 10:08 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by subbie, posted 11-12-2007 10:32 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 106 by dwise1, posted 11-14-2007 3:05 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 93 of 301 (433798)
11-12-2007 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by dwise1
11-12-2007 10:16 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Okay

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 10:16 PM dwise1 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 163 of 301 (442763)
12-22-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Chiroptera
11-22-2007 3:39 PM


Now that's not true. If when the big bang happened, all matter was going in a linear path, why would they start spinning? If I shot a gun in space, I'm pretty sure the bullet would go on and on strait without spinning until it hit some matter. Because the big bang supposedly sent all the matter, then there would be no matter for that matter to hit, if you catch my drift. But, we obviously have spinning galaxies, spinning stars, spinning solar systems, spinning planets, spinning moons, spinning asteroids. Everything in the universe is spinning. So, by your own arguments of 'when the kids get thrown off, they don't spin in the direction of the merry-go-round', you contradict your own theories and provide a base for a God-created universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Chiroptera, posted 11-22-2007 3:39 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2007 4:12 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 167 by Chiroptera, posted 12-22-2007 4:19 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 164 of 301 (442765)
12-22-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by crashfrog
11-22-2007 3:49 PM


But don't evolutionists do the same thing?
Quote:
Creationism is the "explanation" you arrive at when start with creationism, because you want to believe in it, and then you simply ignore everything that might contradict you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2007 3:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2007 4:15 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 168 of 301 (442772)
12-22-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by obvious Child
12-20-2007 4:56 PM


Re: Thread Reopened
Okay, here we go.
Proteins. Simple proteins allow for cells to live. There are a specific 20 that are needed for DNA to be created. However, these 20 proteins are only created at the command of the DNA they produce. Assuming evolution is real, than at some time, there were neither, and now there are both. So, to start the cycle you need DNA, but DNA needs those 20 proteins, and those proteins need DNA. So, because both needs the other, one could logically conclude that there were either both or neither at the beginning of time (the big bang or 'God made the heavens and the earth'). And because there are both now, we must assume that both were created sometime between the beginning and now. Because of their mutual dependence on one another, both had to be created at the same time. Therefore, creation is the only likely solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by obvious Child, posted 12-20-2007 4:56 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2007 4:26 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 172 by obvious Child, posted 12-22-2007 5:01 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 12-22-2007 5:31 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 170 of 301 (442777)
12-22-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Dr Adequate
12-22-2007 4:15 PM


There are many things that don't support evolution and do creation (see message 168). So, evolutionists (yes, I say 'evolutionists' because I feel that evolutionism is not a science, but a religion. I'll explain later) must take the evidence that supports evolutionism, and ignore those that don't.
Now to explain my 'evolution is a religion' theory. Most would say religion needs a god, or higher being. However, most would agree that Buddhism is a religion, when there is no god(s). Therefore, the definition of religion could be stated as 'the belief in something in the face of little to no evidence'.
Charles Darwin could be considered the 'inventor' of evolutionism. Now, being a scientific country, we like to base things on scientific evidence. Now, first, you have to prove something exists (to you). Being told that the sun exists if you live underground and have for your entire life, you don't know that it does. So, we have five senses to tell things exist. Has anybody here ever seen Darwin's brain, felt Darwin's brain, smelt, heard, or tasted his brain? Because nobody has done so, we cannot prove scientifically that Charles Darwin ever had a brain, and that his ideas had any validity. So, we must take them on faith of their origins. Faith without proof, because you cannot prove an idea if you cannot prove that the idea's origin ever existed.
So, now that I've scientifically broken science, I realize that I must take science at its word. I must trust that scientists have brains, and that they know what they are doing. Therefore, everybody in the world that trusts scientists need faith that they have brains. So, if you can trust humans' brains even if you have no proof that they exist, why can't you trust a God, even if you have no proof He exists? Because the latter is considered a religion, why can't the former be one too? They have the same definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2007 4:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 6:22 AM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 171 of 301 (442779)
12-22-2007 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
12-22-2007 4:26 PM


Re: Thread Reopened
Even if I'm wrong, please watch this video and tell me how this could have evolved by chance.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5949506364325433037...
Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened link to fix page width

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2007 4:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by AdminNosy, posted 12-22-2007 5:07 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 6:17 AM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 174 of 301 (442796)
12-22-2007 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AdminNosy
12-22-2007 5:07 PM


Re: We do not argue with links
The basic structure and working systems of the cells are way to advanced to appear from random events. I don't even think that hundreds of trillions of years are enough random events to create even a single eukaryote, let alone life forms with hundreds of thousands of them in distinct organs such as the heard, the eye, the brain, the kidney, the liver, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AdminNosy, posted 12-22-2007 5:07 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 12-22-2007 5:27 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 176 by jar, posted 12-22-2007 5:29 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 178 of 301 (442809)
12-22-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by ringo
12-22-2007 5:31 PM


Re: Thread Reopened
No. There were trucks before factories. However, there could not have been proteins before DNA, or DNA before proteins. Even if amino acids were created with uv light (lack of oxygen in early earth atmosphere) and electricity, what are the odds of those acids forming proteins without direction by the DNA that doesn't exist yet. And even if they did somehow form proteins that weren't immediately torn apart, what are the odds of those proteins forming cells? And, even under the extremely unlikely circumstance that a few cells were created, living cells, then what are the odds that they wouldn't be instantly killed by the very same UV rays that helped make them? And if there was oxygen back then, wouldn't the ingredients for life be destroyed by oxidization? Cells and oxygen, the very oxygen needed for cells to live, had to have been created at the same time, or the cells were protected during their creation or kept alive during the adding of oxygen to the atmosphere. This both implies a God and an instant creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 12-22-2007 5:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by molbiogirl, posted 12-22-2007 5:54 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 181 by molbiogirl, posted 12-22-2007 6:29 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 183 by ringo, posted 12-22-2007 7:10 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 180 of 301 (442817)
12-22-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by molbiogirl
12-22-2007 5:54 PM


Re: Not DNA!
Do you make a habit of only reading the first sentence and judging the entire idea from it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by molbiogirl, posted 12-22-2007 5:54 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by obvious Child, posted 12-22-2007 7:12 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 294 of 301 (444347)
12-28-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Cold Foreign Object
12-22-2007 7:02 PM


"Could you please also show us where any Evolutionist was recognized as a teacher and accepted in that role by any Creationist?"
I do accept evolutionist proffessors and teachers as teachers. They're all over the schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-22-2007 7:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024