Use of Science to Support Creationism

Others have already pointed out that it's actually more overwhelming that it looks. I just thought I'd add that it was deeply committed Bible-believing Christians who grudgingly came to the conclusions that the Earth is old and there was no global flood, before Darwin wrote any of his works. They came to those conclusions because the evidence for an old Earth and no global flood was overwhelming, even in the late 1700's and early 1800's when these geologists lived and worked. Since then we have examined hundreds of times more evidence, and all of it indicates that the Earth is old and there was no global flood.Creationists have found no evidence for a young Earth outside of their peculiar interpretations of the Bible. They have found one or two things that aren't fully explained yet, and might indicate an old Earth or a young Earth. Don't bet your life savings on that evidence indicating a young Earth when the chips are down.It's truly sad that you think that parroting claims from unreliable and prejudiced websites is discussion. You obviously know nothing about the subject and have not even thought about the subject; you just swallow whatever AIG feeds you.

Certainly not, because in today's observable world nothing becomes something all the time, as predicted by quantum mechanics and observed in literally thousands of ways. The observation that is easiest to understand is the Casimir effect. Of course, anything can happen with chance. Add a filter like selection and all sorts of things will happen. The claim that evolution is all chance is another creationist lie. The technical term for that is "strawman fallacy"; ignopring your opponent's real theory and making up a false theory that can easily be attacked. Evolution is nothing like that; selection makes all the difference.This message has been edited by JonF, 05-09-2004 08:44 AM

So you really are that gullible, you don't have any interest in truth or reality, and you really think that spreading lies is acceptable because you are doing it for Jesus.Pathetic.

I believe you chose Christianty, but it's obvious that you did not consider the evidence for evolution. You are far too ignorant of the evidence, and far too accepting of the obvious lies that you have passed on about evolution, for that to be possible.Sad.

Your practice of looking at nothing but creationist web sites is showing.It is possible that the entire Universe is just a quantum fluctuation. The energy content of the Universe is known to be near zero, and could be exactly zero; if it is, then a quantum fluctuation of any duration is possible.There are other hypotheses, such as the one presented in Scientific American this month (The Time Befroe Time), based on string theory ... and I confess I don't understand it.

Typical creationjsit whine. You don't have the evidence, but you want to make your silly claims and have an lame excuse for not supporting your claims. It doesn't fly. Post your evidecne or abandon your claims.From an excellent post on the subject on another message board:

quote:

---

You rather weaken your stand, though, when you begin whining and trying to cast those who make the charge of "He's got nuthin'" as prejudiced, as unfair, as "making the assumption that those that disagree with them are blithering idiots."

​

Stick with admitting that you have no intention of defending your opinion, and accepting that the heat for that is justified, and then at least you can be credited with integrity. ...

​

Go ahead and take your stand, and take the heat for it. But don't try to get out of debating and get credit for "I could if I wanted to." If you really didn't want to defend your statement, the ethical thing would have been to not make it in the first place. If you refuse to make a case, other people are quite justified in concluding that you have no case to make, and stating that opinion.

---

"The oldestt living tree" is not "the oldest tree".