Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   QUESTIONS
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 113 (5781)
02-28-2002 8:08 AM


here are some questions. I'd like to see if creationists can tackle them.
1). Given that rats and rabbits are some of the most common animals in the world, shouldn’t we expect to find their remains in the same strata as some of the more common dinosaurs? The same question can be asked of whales and plesiosaurs, or of any modern mammal and any common dinosaur. Creationism has never presented a credible response to this dilemma.
2). It is probably a safe assumption that Nobel Prize winners are among the most brilliant scientists in the world. These are people who have demonstrated keen insight into some cutting edge scientific breakthroughs. If Creationism is a credible movement, then why aren’t any of these Nobel Prize winners Creationists?
3). Why do multiple, independent methods all agree on an estimated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years?
4). Can you provide a good reason, using Creation Science, as to why a bird would be more closely related (genetically) to a snake than a bat?
5). Gallup polls have shown that the more education that a person has, the more likely they are to reject Creationism in favor of evolution. This is even more apparent if the education is specialized in the sciences. What is the Creationist explanation for this?
6). Can you name a scientific advance that Creation Science has been responsible for? By this, I don’t mean something that Isaac Newton came up with long before the Theory of Evolution was proposed. I mean an advance that was arrived at using the Creationist model.
7). Why don't we observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record. Since the Flood allegedly took place a mere 5000 years ago, this evidence should still remain with very little erosion.
8).There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one instance of any fossils that have been deposited "out of order".
9). No varves, ice cores, tree ring ensembles, coral cores, or other examples of periodically accumulated accretion should be found to extend back beyond the time of the Flood. They do. Ice cores, drilled from stable ice plains, show 40,000 years of annual layers. Varves, which are mineral deposits, show millions of years of annual layers.
those are just a few. please don't tell me that i'm going to broad. just answer one or two of them. or address each one in a separate post.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RetroCrono, posted 02-28-2002 8:23 AM quicksink has not replied
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2002 6:36 AM quicksink has not replied
 Message 10 by themediator, posted 03-01-2002 12:53 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 50 by TrueCreation, posted 03-03-2002 4:15 PM quicksink has replied
 Message 111 by allen, posted 08-12-2002 10:07 AM quicksink has not replied

  
RetroCrono
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 113 (5783)
02-28-2002 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
02-28-2002 8:08 AM


1. Makes you wonder doesn't it.
2. I think you answered your own question. The word CREDIBLE just has to much meaning there.
3. Well, I wouldn't ever assert the earth is defiently 4.5 billion years. I've even heard of many dates being rejected because of this preconceived notion. I believe the earth is older than what YEC claim, a lot older. But that's still a devoloping science.
4. Good? I dunno.
5. It's a conspiracy!!! Well, I'm sure it would be something like that. Evolution is also asserted as fact in most science. I wonder if that has something to do with it. Also, Have you taken an English course recently? It pretty much just sets someone up to reject the Bible.
6. LOL, no.
7. Join the solving the Biblical flood thread. That's way to indepth here. Anyway, why would it be uniform? Did the water cover earth identically everywhere following the exact same patterns.
8. Nice point.
9. Dunno
Yes, this is going way to broad. Do you expect to argue all 9 points in one topic. There's topics already you could join I'm sure covering such issues. Attacking them with a heap of questions is a real straw man approach. What are you trying to prove?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 02-28-2002 8:08 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 113 (5790)
02-28-2002 9:46 AM


quote:
7. Join the solving the Biblical flood thread. That's way to indepth here. Anyway, why would it be uniform? Did the water cover earth identically everywhere following the exact same patterns.
it wouldn't be uniformic.... but we would find randomly deposited boulders all over the planet.
we don't

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 113 (5867)
03-01-2002 4:14 AM


i think i will keep pushing this post up until someone gives an answer. so here we go...

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 113 (5868)
03-01-2002 4:18 AM


by the way, i am not trying to prove anything. i am asking questions, and wondering if there are answers.
is it really that controversial to ask a few questions in a forum... all a creationist has to do is write a small reply for each question...
it's almost annoying that peoplea re so nit-picky about putting all these questions in one forum.
answer a single question, or two, if you like... just answer them...

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Peter, posted 03-01-2002 5:46 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 6 of 113 (5871)
03-01-2002 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by quicksink
03-01-2002 4:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
by the way, i am not trying to prove anything. i am asking questions, and wondering if there are answers.
is it really that controversial to ask a few questions in a forum... all a creationist has to do is write a small reply for each question...
it's almost annoying that peoplea re so nit-picky about putting all these questions in one forum.
answer a single question, or two, if you like... just answer them...

I agree ... and your points 1 & 8 (the same point really ?)
I have been banging my head against a TC in the Falsifying Creation
thread.
I think TC might be coming round though, because (s)he's changing
his/her arguments

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by quicksink, posted 03-01-2002 4:18 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 113 (5875)
03-01-2002 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
02-28-2002 8:08 AM


quicksink: Good questions. I hope to see some good answers.
Retro: I don't think the technique quicksink is employing here is invalid. S/He's being a lot more generous than most creationists by offering a smorgasboard of question from which the creationists only have to answer ONE. Debating the evolution side on a board like this I often feel I need PhD's in every discipline from genetics, biology, geology, chemistry, physics, archeology, information science, to astronomy and microbiology. Creationists seem to think that if you can't refute every single detail of every single creationist author back to the hypothetical writer of Genesis 1, then creationism is proven and the ToE fails.
Let's give respondants a chance to provide some real evidence for a change. That appears to be what quicksink is asking for...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 02-28-2002 8:08 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 113 (5880)
03-01-2002 7:23 AM


WHEW! i'm glad that someone out there is actually supportive.
well, anyway, i hope to see some answers, although it make take a very long time.
and crono- are you a creationist, cause if you are, those answers, no offense, were pretty unconvincing. just wondering.

  
themediator
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 113 (5898)
03-01-2002 12:29 PM


1)You would think so, but the world wide flood upset everything. Granted it didn't move everything around, but it did do enough to blow the little bones of a rat or rabbit around. In this process, the little bones were scattered and tossed, leaving them strewn about and practically unperceivable to the untrained eye. The bones of a dinosaur are considerably larger than a rat or rabbit making those bones much easier to find.

  
themediator
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 113 (5901)
03-01-2002 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
02-28-2002 8:08 AM


2)Ya see, brilliant scientists are everywhere. The fact that one person won the nobel peace prize means absolutely nothing. The fact that most evolutionary scientist get nobel prizes is true, but that doesn't devalue creation scientists discoveries at all. The creation scientists just are disproved and shown prejudice when attempting to go for a peace prize have been met with hostility by judicators in the Nobel Peace Prize council(for lack of a better word) because people don't want to accept the truth that there may be a God. That would mean that there would be judgment day and people would have to atone for their sins, and people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. So people will try everything to disprove creation so they can sleep at night believing that they don't have to atone for the wrongs they did. That's why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 02-28-2002 8:08 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by joz, posted 03-01-2002 12:58 PM themediator has not replied
 Message 13 by joz, posted 03-01-2002 1:09 PM themediator has not replied
 Message 22 by Jeff, posted 03-01-2002 2:20 PM themediator has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 113 (5902)
03-01-2002 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by themediator
03-01-2002 12:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by themediator:
2)Ya see, brilliant scientists are everywhere. The fact that one person won the nobel peace prize means absolutely nothing. The fact that most evolutionary scientist get nobel prizes is true, but that doesn't devalue creation scientists discoveries at all. The creation scientists just are disproved and shown prejudice when attempting to go for a peace prize have been met with hostility by judicators in the Nobel Peace Prize council(for lack of a better word) because people don't want to accept the truth that there may be a God. That would mean that there would be judgment day and people would have to atone for their sins, and people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. So people will try everything to disprove creation so they can sleep at night believing that they don't have to atone for the wrongs they did. That's why.
Or possibly their research and science are both completely spurious and not one of them has ever produced something worth a Nobel prize...
I personally find this more convincing than the Global Evilutionist Conspiracy TM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by themediator, posted 03-01-2002 12:53 PM themediator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by William E. Harris, posted 08-09-2002 3:30 AM joz has not replied

  
themediator
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 113 (5903)
03-01-2002 1:06 PM


3)That's the best estimate that evolutionists can come up with. If it's any longer it disproves a large portion of evolution. If its any shorter, it disproves a different large portion of evolution. Even now, it disproves some of evolution. The truth is, there is no time that is perfect that doesn't disprove some portion of evolution. It all depends what you believe. Every evolutionist believes something a little different than another. Kinda like politics, people can be republican but one is pro-life and one is pro-choice. There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal. We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by joz, posted 03-01-2002 1:22 PM themediator has not replied
 Message 20 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-01-2002 2:07 PM themediator has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 113 (5904)
03-01-2002 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by themediator
03-01-2002 12:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by themediator:
2)1)The fact that one person won the nobel peace prize means absolutely nothing...
2)The fact that most evolutionary scientist get nobel prizes is true...

1)Actually more than 1 person wins a Nobel prize every year...
2)This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever, it seems to imply that you think a large proportion of evolutionary scientists are awarded Nobel prizes, they aren`t....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by themediator, posted 03-01-2002 12:53 PM themediator has not replied

  
themediator
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 113 (5905)
03-01-2002 1:21 PM


5)That's because today's society is saturated with evolution and "evolution science." People who have gone to public schools for their entire life have been hit with evolution since kindergarten. The fact that they believe evolution over everything else is bunk because that's all that people are taught. The "Theory of Evolution" is not a theory but a religion. People blindly believe that we came from dirt. A government funded religion because (as I said earlier) people don't want to take responsibility for their actions and people will believe anything before they believe that there's a God. Also, you have to take into account the ratio of people that attend public schools and private schools. Your whole argument is invalidated somewhat due to the fact that public schools far outnumber private schools. So of course since creation has been taken out of school due to the separation of church and state (which is bunk) now evolution is taught without restraint or even giving people choice by showing both sides (creation/evolution). The children of today are being indoctrinated by evolution to the point at which they don't know what else to believe because people don't teach anything else.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 03-01-2002 1:30 PM themediator has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 113 (5906)
03-01-2002 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by themediator
03-01-2002 1:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by themediator:
1)That's the best estimate that evolutionists can come up with.
2)If it's any longer it disproves a large portion of evolution.
3)If its any shorter, it disproves a different large portion of evolution.
4)Even now, it disproves some of evolution.
5)There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal.
6)We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution.

1)Really a guess is it? Why hasn`t it been exposed as such, oh it must be GEC TM at work again...
2)How does more time available cast any doubts on the possibility of evolution?
3)Possibly, possibly not it depends how much shorter a time frame we are talking about.... 10,000 yearas would be to short but then again the GEC TM have managed to supress that as a widely accepted age...
4)Really? How?
5)How about the fact that genetic data shows exactly the "papertrail" that evolution predicts ie chimps and humans having more shared genetic material and retroviral insertions than humans and gerbils...
The GEC TM want you to think this is due to a shared ancestry....
6)Would you care to define created kinds for me...
For instance are chimps and orangutangs the same "kind"...
Are humans and chimps the same "kind"...
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by themediator, posted 03-01-2002 1:06 PM themediator 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