• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NG7

Smash Lord
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,327
I think other people would prefer it if you posted without the jargon.
 

EnigmaticCam

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
311 said:
You just gave two great reasons for why it is false man. You are falliciously implying that he is on-face denying objective reason.
No, I'm accurately implying that he is on-face denying objective reason. Reread my post please. He argues that the six days cannot be literal, and I prove exactly that - that they are not literal. But his counter-arguments has nothing to do with the conversation. So if you want to start throwing in logical fallacies, then his fell to the Complex Question, where two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition.

311 said:
Hah, and don't tell anyone not to talk, please. This is a place for civil argumentation and is thus a platform for free discourse.
I didn't tell anybody not to talk. I meant that he and I were done talking, as it's obvious now that sound logic is not the basis for his arguments, and that's a conversation I don't want to take part in.

311 said:
Don't necessarily think of a rejoinder's logic as looking into a forest from the macro and seeing this dead tree (which I assume you to mean discrepency), rather think of it as the rejoinder looking at a chain and seeing a weak or corrupt link in that chain. If that link is indeed defective than the entire chain can hold no weight. This is the underlying implication of all anti-metaphorical arguments made in this thread.
No, my illustration was taken out of context. First, the words "dying tree" were in quotes because the tree was only dying in his eyes, so the tree in reality is fully alive. Second, the argument is not like a weak link in a chain because I was trying to illustrate how it's not very sound to completely disregard the entire picture just because there's one little thing that's "not easily" understood ("not easily" in quotes because, again, it is quite easy).

311 said:
And yes, metaphors have no weight in a debate based upon facts. Merely begging the question, "Well, it could exist... and ****ed be him who thinks otherwise" doesn't prove causuality.
No, wrong again. Unexplained metaphores have no weight in a debate. The use of the "day" metaphore is fully and easily explained, as I proved with my earlier references. There is no confusion as to what 'day' means. That makes two things clear: (1) The argument against the Genesis account that the universe could not have been craeted in six literal days holds no weight as the Genesis account does not claim the universe was created in six
literal days. (2) The argument aginst the Genessis account using the word "day" in a metaphorical sense as causing too much confusion holds no weight either because there is no confusion as to what "day" means.

If the use of a metaphor and/or simile has no weight in a debate based upon facts, then you can throw out your illlustration of a weak link. Any illustations or analogies from this point on are negated because, according to you, they hold no weight.
 

8000

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,458
Location
Canada eh!
I have a question that i'm not sure applies to this topic or not;

Deja Veu, i constantly have them and it's like it know what is going to happen and when it happens i know i've seen it happen before. Is there any way to explain this or is it some sign of Destiny that God has set out for you?
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
9
I see the question 8000 posted as a double sided answer. The atheists might say something like "You've seen something close to it before at some point, making you believe that you'ev seen the exact thing happen." while creationists could say something like, "It might involve the essense of science, but god has intentions for us all and he gives us clues on when to act on them." I think both sides are to slanted and noble to be able to empathise the views of their opponent, much like political parties of today and yesteryear.

As a fomous quote reads, "I would consider myself an agnostic.. one who when proposed the idea of a god will consider it if even for a second and dismiss it as preposterous because of lack of (or no) evidance. I suppose an athiest would be one who does not want to consider a(the)(as is relevant) possibility, (which there are infinite) because to consider something unsupported by any proof is preposterous and a waste of time. Heck maybe I'm just wasting my time..."

A thought I had that is a little off topic but still poses some questions in our debate is the fact that in most cases, it's not the religion that you necessarily hate, it's mostly the followers. As Susan B. Anthony wrote, "I was born a heretic. I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." you get a sense of human's use of "god". God might be there for you, but he sure as hell wouldn't have you use him for you're selfish gain. If this god is so rightious, why is he so scared of people not believing in him. We are supposedly in another plane and cosmos than he, and he has all this power. That doesn't sound like an all-powerful being and leader to me, but a lion in a pride that can easily be overthrown by the other members.

In closing, what is God so afraid of?
 

TheKeyboardist

Smash Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
55
Heaven is a perfect place. Why in the world would you want to leave? And Jesus Christ left heaven so he could die to save us. Think about it this way, how would your mother feel if you didnt love her? If she put all her love through to you but you despised her, you werent thankful for what shes doing for you, working extra shifts so she could give you what you wanted. If you were in your mother's position, wouldnt you want your son to love you back? What if i were to say God loves you more than any mother or girlfriend ever could? If he wanted to, he could give you everything you want, and hes already given us he gift of eternal life in the most perfect place of all. It was made so we would be with Him forever but by adam and eve disobeying his direct order, sin entered. Sin ultimately came through our free will, but what if He didnt give us free will? I remember someone arguning about this, if we didnt have free will, we would just be robots, and if you do everthing God's way, then how would we, His beloved, ever be content? So be happy about your ability to choose. So to sum it all up, Hes not afraid of anything. He just doesnt want His creation, his most beloved to turn their back on Him, the one that listens to every single one's prayers, a King that listens to the pleas of the lowest commoner.

And what happened to master fox and lanowen? They have yet to answer my first and second arguments. And many others too i believe.
 

null

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
161
Location
Godfrey, Illinois
And what happened to master fox and lanowen? They have yet to answer my first and second arguments. And many others too i believe.
They probably grew bored with this thread, neither side is going to move at all, atheists are convinced that science will reveal the answers, not a storybook.

While Christians constantly cling to their ancient beliefs, saying they know there's a God, yet they've never seen/hear/touched him, or how they know there's a heaven, yet they've never died and experienced it.

So yes, I wouldn't be suprised if they were either bored of listening to the same ignorance being repeated.

Honestly though, for once, just look at History, look at other religions, how they've all turned out wrong, having Gods for everything they didn't understand: Lightning, Love, the Sun, Night, Death, Disease, etc etc... But why aren't these religions here anymore? We've learned that those things weren't caused by Gods. Now look at your religion, how much it has changed to try to disprove anything we've learned, how many wars since the religion was started that we've fought, how "Good Christian People" have treated other human beings (Native-Americans, Africans, "Witches" etc) just because they believed or acted differently.

[/rant]

But I'm sure you scrolled down past this post anyway... :ohwell:
 

EnigmaticCam

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
null said:
While Christians constantly cling to their ancient beliefs, saying they know there's a God, yet they've never seen/hear/touched him, or how they know there's a heaven, yet they've never died and experienced it.
You fall to the From Ignorance fallacy, where because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false. To contrast your statement, "you've never seen/heard/touched a black hole" yet you know it exists. Not because you can see, hear, or touch it, but because of the evidences that have presented its existence.

null said:
]So yes, I wouldn't be suprised if they were either bored of listening to the same ignorance being repeated.
Here you fall to the fallacy of attacking the person and dodging the real argument by throwing out a direct insult.

null said:
Honestly though, for once, just look at History, look at other religions, how they've all turned out wrong, having Gods for everything they didn't understand: Lightning, Love, the Sun, Night, Death, Disease, etc etc... But why aren't these religions here anymore?
This argument amounts to nothing because (1) what one religion believes or claims does not nulify another, and (2) there were many forms of science in existence that were just as erroneous in their conjectures, e.g. alchemists who believe they could turn any form of metal into gold.

null said:
...how many wars since the religion was started that we've fought, how "Good Christian People" have treated other human beings (Native-Americans, Africans, "Witches" etc) just because they believed or acted differently.
A persons actions alone do not necessarily negate his/her beliefs. Thousands have acted in the name of "God" not even knowing who he is or what he stands for. Thousands have acted in the name of the Bible without even so much as opening it and really knowing what it says.

I will hope to get a nice large post of evidence towards the existence of God later tonight when I have my references with me.
 

null

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
161
Location
Godfrey, Illinois
To contrast your statement, "you've never seen/heard/touched a black hole" yet you know it exists. Not because you can see, hear, or touch it, but because of the evidences that have presented its existence.
Seeing an empty earea of space with no stars around it is "seeing" it. There is, however, no such evidence to prove a God other than a storybook and it's brainwashed followers.

Here you fall to the fallacy of attacking the person and dodging the real argument by throwing out a direct insult.
I'm sorry, stupid is the word I was looking for. Evolution is right in front of you, yet you say it's wrong because it goes against the teachings that have been beaten into your head since you were a child. Do you still believe God is the cause of lightning? hurricanes? earthquakes?

This argument amounts to nothing because (1) what one religion believes or claims does not nulify another, and (2) there were many forms of science in existence that were just as erroneous in their conjectures, e.g. alchemists who believe they could turn any form of metal into gold.
(1) The point had nothing to do with religions nullifying each other, it was to prove that people create "gods" to explain the unexplainable, the only difference between Greek mythology and Christianity is you and millions of other people today believe in it. (2) I don't understand what you're trying to prove? That science can disprove science? Fine. Can religion disprove science? I'm still waiting.

Thousands have acted in the name of "God" not even knowing who he is or what he stands for. Thousands have acted in the name of the Bible without even so much as opening it and really knowing what it says.
As I said: Ignorance.
 

EnigmaticCam

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
null said:
I'm sorry, stupid is the word I was looking for.
Since you seem want to focus the argument on how "stupid" or "ignorant" I am, then screw it. I'm not going to bother with someone who can't show a little respect and hold a logical and sound discussion.
 

Lanowen

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
2,462
Location
Mississauga Ontario, Canada
TheKeyboardist said:
And what happened to master fox and lanowen? They have yet to answer my first and second arguments. And many others too i believe.
I deemed it an insult to my intelligence to continue reading, and answering some people's opinions/questions if you need to know.

Also as said by null, this is a boring topic, first is that it is not progressing like null said, and the second is stated above.

My opinion of this thread is one the first/second page I believe. I am surprised it made it this far.
 

Master Fox

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
230
Location
The Great Fox
TheKeyboardist said:
And what happened to master fox and lanowen? They have yet to answer my first and second arguments. And many others too i believe.
Internet was down for me anyway.
TheKeyboardist said:
Where in the world did you get that eqation from and how in the world does that refute my argument? And actually, God IS an exception. Well, Hes all powerful. That means he can do anything, nothing is impossiblf for Him and the least of His limits of is to create the earth out of nothing. And that equation in no way refutes creation.
Where did I get this equation?! Third Grade! Its the basic equation for the zero times tables. Everything multiplied by Zero equals Zero. There are no exceptions. This equation is a major, major obsticle for Creationists because it can't be disproven.
TheKeyboardist said:
No, its because youre being an ignorant stuck up.
No, its just you really have no proof. You come to this debate with hypothesis which is unproven fact which brings me to something else. A theory is the samething as a hypothesus, however, in science, a theory is the samething as a fact and the opposite of a hypothesis, which few people don't realize. They stopped calling proven hypothesises "laws" a long time ago and have been calling them "theories". This also means that society has seen enough proof in Evolution to declare that its the truth and deeming it "The Theory of Evolution".
Also, (I have to bring this up) I was shocked to find out that there are no more official debates on Creation VS Evolution (evolution won btw) and the now is Intellegent Design VS Evolution. Intellegent Design is actually means that God is in control of Evolution. The former Creationists that lost the C. VS E. debate and now debating for Intellegent Design but they are also officially losing the debate as well though you creationists have too much determination. Fight for what you believe in even if its wrong, right?
TheKeyboardist said:
Now, care to reply to the other half of my post?
Sure! Lets see what new hypothesises you have to offer...
TheKeyboardist said:
could it be that someone forged the sign and moved it? A lot can happen in 2000-3000 years you know.
Not likely...We don't even have the technology now to move an entire mountain without taking it apart first or even copy a mountain. 12 boulders and a hole in the side of the mountain were the 10 commandments were forge are just some of the signs. I won't go further into the signs for its not really portaining to this debate. Just wanted to point out an example where the Bible has been wrong.
TheKeyboardist said:
Try the earth's magnetic field. The following processes are usually selectively screened out by evolutionists because they indicate a relatively young age for the earth and solar system and thereby deprive them of their evolutionary time frame.

The strength of the earth's magnetic field has been measured for well over a century. This provides scientists with exceptionally good records. In an important recent study, Thomas G. Barnes has shown that the strength of the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially at a rate corresponding to a half-life of 1,400 years. That is to say, 1,400 years ago the magnetic field of the earth was twice as strong as it is now. If we extrapolate back as far as 10,000 years, we find that the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as that of a magnetic star! This is, of course, highly improbable, if not impossible. Thus, based on the present decay rate of the earth's magnetic field, 10,000 years appears to be an upper limit for the age of the earth.

Keep in mind that any objections to this conclusion must be based on rejection of the same uniformitarian assumption that evolutionists utilize to derive a great age for the earth.

In defense of their long-age chronology, evolutionists have proposed a reversal hypothesis. They suggest that the earth's magnetic field has remained relatively stable throughout geologic time, except for certain intervals in which it went through a reversal, dying down to zero and rising up again with the reverse polarity. The last such reversal is alleged to have occurred about 700,000 years ago.

Unfortunately for evolutionary scientists, the reversal hypothesis has absolutely no valid scientific theoretical basis. Furthermore, rock magnetization cannot be used to support these so-called reversals because there is a self-reversal process known to exist in rocks, completely independent of the earth's magnetic field.

Finally, it is believed that the earth's magnetic field is due to circulating electric currents in its core. If we extrapolate backward about 20,000 years, we find that the estimated heat produced by the currents would have melted the earth. Clearly, the testimony of the earth's magnetic field is strongly in favor of a relatively young earth, not an ancient one.
Could you explain how long, accurately, have they been studying this.
Now, I don't entirely believe in that whole reverse thing but I do think this. At one point, the magnetic field was very stable and the magnetic field doesn't change often. I common magnets, the magnetic field is very stable until the magnet is very, very old and will start to lose it's magnetic feild. Once it reaches Zero, the magnet is no longer a magnet. So, this information you provided doesn't prove creation. You just proved that the world is going to end soon. Congradulations!
TheKeyboardist said:
The Mississippi River delta offers additional evidence to support the concept of a relatively young earth. Approximately 300 million cubic yards of sediment are deposited into the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River each year. By carefully studying the volume and rate of accumulation of the Mississippi River Delta and then dividing the weight of the sediments deposited annually into the total weight of the delta, it can be determined that the age of the delta is about 4,000 years old.
Your right about the age of the Mississippi River but that has nothing to do with the Earth's age. Canyons were once rivers but the water eroted away the rock and carved the land from a river and to a canyon. Its called the Theory of Erotion, which is witnessed and studied, nothing to do with Evolution VS Creation.
TheKeyboardist said:
Petroleum and natural gas are contained at high pressures in underground reservoirs by relatively impermeable cap rock. In many cases, the pressures are extremely high. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock reveal that the oil and gas pressures could not be maintained for much longer than 10,000 years in many instances. Thus, the assumption that such fossil-fuel deposits have been confined for millions of years, having not leaked out through their cap rock, becomes preposterous.
That's one reason why there are volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. Its to ease the pressure. So, its not preposterous. Creationism is preposterous.
TheKeyboardist said:
Furthermore, recent experiments have demonstrated conclusively that the conversion of marine and vegetable matter into oil and gas can be achieved in a surprisingly short time. For example, plant-derived material has been converted into a good grade of petroleum in as little as twenty minutes under the proper temperature and pressure conditions. Wood and other cellulosic material have also been converted into coal or coal-like substances in just a few hours. These experiments prove that the formation of coal, oil and gas did not necessarily require millions of years to form as uniformitarian geologists have assumed and taught.
The geologists weren't uniformed, you were. We have to technology to make oils and petroleum in short periods of time such as twenty minutes. Those machines are equipped to do so. Nature isn't, which is why it takes millions of years to do it in nature.
TheKeyboardist said:
The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing due to the gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon and other factors. If the earth is billions of years old, as uniformitarian geologists insist, and it has been slowing down uniformly, then its present rotation should be zero! Furthermore, if we extrapolate backward for several billion years, the centrifugal force would have been so great that the continents would have been sent to the equatorial regions and the overall shape of the earth would have been more like a flat pancake. But, as is commonly known, the shape of the earth is spherical; its continents are not confined to the equatorial regions, and it continues to rotate on its axis at approximately 1,000 mph at the equator. The obvious conclusion is that the earth is not billions of years old.
Yes, the rotation of the Earth does slow from time to time but the rotation also speeds up. That's why Daylight Savings Time exists. I think you better do research on Why we have Daylight Savings Time. The Earth also has slow down points and speed up points in its orbit around the sun, which is why Earth's orbit isn't a perfect circle but and oval. In the Northern summer, the Earth is the closest to the Sun and speeds up, swinging around the sun and slows when going against the gravity of the sun and that's winter time. Your statement is not the whole truth by the way.
TheKeyboardist said:
There you go, 4 reliable methods. Go and disprove them.
I just did! Not very reliable either.
TheKeyboardist said:
Oh youre a laugh. You obvilously lack the common sense to understand what im saying. "Prove It!" What does that have to do with anything? I dont have to answer that. In our belief, we believe that God is all-powerful, so its true to us. That would explain it then and there for us. Now its YOUR duty to DISPROVE that, not my duty to prove it.
I think it is you who lacks the common sense to understand a debate. It is your job to prove everything on your side and disprove my side and its my job to disprove everything on your side and prove the stuff on my side. So, you DO have to answer "Prove it!" because just because its true to you and your creationist buddies doesn't meant that its actually true. I can care less that its true to you. Its not true to me. So you have to prove it because if you fail this one, you lose the debate. Why? because its the backbone of the whole creationist belief and if we knock it down, you won't be able to support creationism no matter how much you ***** about it, which is the case.
TheKwyboardist said:
Who are you to say it was all fear? It could be that he didnt have anymore evidence to back up his arguments. Thats what i find in most evolutionists i encounter, none of them are knowledgeable enough to back up their points.
Most people are afraid of dying. The ones that aren't die without question in acts of bravery or commit suicide. He had enough evidence to turn his hypothesis into a full scientific theory.
null said:
While Christians constantly cling to their ancient beliefs, saying they know there's a God, yet they've never seen/hear/touched him, or how they know there's a heaven, yet they've never died and experienced it.
I honestly have seen, touched and spoken to God and have been to heaven in a previous life. They are nothing like what the Bible says. God is powerful but not all powerful and he isn't all knowing either. He's actually a super-powerful Angel with long, spiked up golden hair, a scar going down the left side of his face, muscular but not bulky, beautiful dove-like wings and an armoured tail with a cool looking tip at the end (a mechanical, 4 clawed claw). Heaven is a peaceful but technological place, Angels are everywhere. Heaven isn't on Earth but is somewhere within the universe. It's on another world. Hell and the Garden of Eden are also on this world. Hell isn't underground either and isn't like what the Bible says either...been there too...fun place if you don't go to the Valley of Hell, which is similar but not entirely like Dante's Hell!
At first, when I first started getting memories of this, I thought I was making it up but then, I started meeting people from that previous life, some trying to kill me like the King of Demons (worse than Satan by the way) and started meeting people with memories of this, meeting people there too but their memories are from different angles of the area. God's,Heaven's, and Hell's discriptions were identical.
I don't believe that if you die but are revived, you will see heaven or hell but you may dream that you do. Your brain is still alive even after the body dies until your brain doesn't get oxygen and blood from 12-45 minutes. After 3 minutes without blood and oxygen, the brain will hillucinate.
null said:
Honestly though, for once, just look at History, look at other religions, how they've all turned out wrong, having Gods for everything they didn't understand: Lightning, Love, the Sun, Night, Death, Disease, etc etc... But why aren't these religions here anymore? We've learned that those things weren't caused by Gods. Now look at your religion, how much it has changed to try to disprove anything we've learned, how many wars since the religion was started that we've fought, how "Good Christian People" have treated other human beings (Native-Americans, Africans, "Witches" etc) just because they believed or acted differently.
This is one of the many reasons why I think the Bible is incorrect. Those other religions had the same chances as Christianity in being right though I think their wrong.
EnigmaticCam said:
You fall to the From Ignorance fallacy, where because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false. To contrast your statement, "you've never seen/heard/touched a black hole" yet you know it exists. Not because you can see, hear, or touch it, but because of the evidences that have presented its existence.
There's a difference. Its not humanly possible to prove God's existance but we can see Black Holes when their actively sucking in matter with the use of a telescope or the Hubble Telescope.
EnigmaticCam said:
This argument amounts to nothing because (1) what one religion believes or claims does not nulify another, and (2) there were many forms of science in existence that were just as erroneous in their conjectures, e.g. alchemists who believe they could turn any form of metal into gold.
Alchemy failed though.

Ok...that's it with the quoting for now.

Ok, About that whole dog thing being evidence to Evolution, he's something to add to it. One of the Science teachers in my school used to breed and raise dogs. He would give the dogs different tasks to do, different than their bodies were theoretically designed to do. One of those dogs gave birth to a new breed of dog, a dog made for the task he was giving the parents to do. So, he witnessed the birth of a new breed of dog. That is evidence of Evolution, enough evidence to prove that evolution is correct and shows evolution in the macro-universe. So, no evidence in Evolution, huh? I think that's more than enough evidence! That's why evolution and not creation is taught in school. Creation is juat a hypothesis and Evolution is a scientific theory which means its a fact. If you want sources, I have sources...

And EnigmaticCam, you keep saying that you have prove of God's existance but you have not posted it yet. Please post it...
 

snex

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
3,085
Location
Chicago, IL
The strength of the earth's magnetic field has been measured for well over a century. This provides scientists with exceptionally good records. In an important recent study, Thomas G. Barnes has shown that the strength of the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially at a rate corresponding to a half-life of 1,400 years. That is to say, 1,400 years ago the magnetic field of the earth was twice as strong as it is now. If we extrapolate back as far as 10,000 years, we find that the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as that of a magnetic star! This is, of course, highly improbable, if not impossible. Thus, based on the present decay rate of the earth's magnetic field, 10,000 years appears to be an upper limit for the age of the earth.

Keep in mind that any objections to this conclusion must be based on rejection of the same uniformitarian assumption that evolutionists utilize to derive a great age for the earth.

In defense of their long-age chronology, evolutionists have proposed a reversal hypothesis. They suggest that the earth's magnetic field has remained relatively stable throughout geologic time, except for certain intervals in which it went through a reversal, dying down to zero and rising up again with the reverse polarity. The last such reversal is alleged to have occurred about 700,000 years ago.

Unfortunately for evolutionary scientists, the reversal hypothesis has absolutely no valid scientific theoretical basis. Furthermore, rock magnetization cannot be used to support these so-called reversals because there is a self-reversal process known to exist in rocks, completely independent of the earth's magnetic field.
why didnt you mention that these "self-reversals" happen to rock on land, but not to rock under water, and that underwater rocks are the ones measured for polarity reversals?

Finally, it is believed that the earth's magnetic field is due to circulating electric currents in its core. If we extrapolate backward about 20,000 years, we find that the estimated heat produced by the currents would have melted the earth. Clearly, the testimony of the earth's magnetic field is strongly in favor of a relatively young earth, not an ancient one.
this is just plain false. show your math or dont even bother.

Theres lots of other reliable methods to disproving the earth of having an age of 4 billion years.
since creationists are so fond of pointing out the "assumptions" behind real dating methods, lets give them a taste of their own medicine.

The Mississippi River delta offers additional evidence to support the concept of a relatively young earth. Approximately 300 million cubic yards of sediment are deposited into the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River each year. By carefully studying the volume and rate of accumulation of the Mississippi River Delta and then dividing the weight of the sediments deposited annually into the total weight of the delta, it can be determined that the age of the delta is about 4,000 years old.
ASSUMPTION 1: deposition rates have remained the same throughout the life of the mississippi river.
STRENGTH: [2/5] - weather is unpredictable, both in the long term and the short term. ice ages would increase the age considerably, as sedimentation rates would be much slower (or even stopped) during ice ages. simply applying a constant rate is inappropriate in this case.

ASSUMPTION 2: the earth is the same age as the mississippi river.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - this assumption is completely unwarranted. the sears tower is 32 years old, so shall we conclude that chicago is 32 years old?

ASSUMPTION 3: the mississippi river's position has not changed.
STRENGTH: [2/5] - rivers do not stay in the same place over large periods of time. in fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that the river delta and gulf entrance once extended all the way up to illinois[1].

ASSUMPTION 4: sea level has stayed relatively constant over the life of the mississippi river.
STRENGTH: [1/5] - one cannot simply "count the total amount of sediment" if the sea level has varied over long periods of time.


Petroleum and natural gas are contained at high pressures in underground reservoirs by relatively impermeable cap rock. In many cases, the pressures are extremely high. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock reveal that the oil and gas pressures could not be maintained for much longer than 10,000 years in many instances. Thus, the assumption that such fossil-fuel deposits have been confined for millions of years, having not leaked out through their cap rock, becomes preposterous.
ASSUMPTION 1: the pressure of natural gas and petroleum wells has remained the same for the duration of their lifetimes.
STRENGTH: [2/5] - pressures do not simply poof into existence, they build up over time. furthermore, if the rock permeability was as creationists claim, such pressures would have never built up to begin with.

ASSUMPTION 2: the earth is the same age as its petroleum and natural gas wells.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - once again, this assumption is unwarranted. wells could be relatively young due to seepage from other wells.

Furthermore, recent experiments have demonstrated conclusively that the conversion of marine and vegetable matter into oil and gas can be achieved in a surprisingly short time. For example, plant-derived material has been converted into a good grade of petroleum in as little as twenty minutes under the proper temperature and pressure conditions. Wood and other cellulosic material have also been converted into coal or coal-like substances in just a few hours. These experiments prove that the formation of coal, oil and gas did not necessarily require millions of years to form as uniformitarian geologists have assumed and taught.
ASSUMPTION 1: quick-forming conditions of the lab exist(ed) in nature.
STRENGTH: [3/5] - lab conditions for forming coal and oil are far beyond the natural conditions that form coal naturally. lab conditions can control many variables with extreme precision, whereas the earth cannot do so naturally. we also know that coal beds show history of significant time, such as stream channels, roots, and soil horizons.

ASSUMPTION 2: the earth is the same age as the coal within it.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - seeing a pattern yet?

Creationists believe that the great coal deposits of the world are the transported and metamorphosed remains of the extensive vegetation of the antediluvian world. This catastrophic interpretation is further supported by the presence of polystrate fossils in coal beds which indicate rapid formation. Also, the type of plants involved and the texture of these deposits testify of turbulent waters, not a stagnant swamp.
ASSUMPTION 1: local floods indicate a global flood.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - polystrate fossils and coal beds were indeed made by floods, but if this is the case, why is the world not covered in them? why are they sparse and near bodies of water (or former bodies of water), as expected if the floods were local? if creationists want to claim a global flood, then the earth should be effected similarly everywhere.

Evolutionists propose that coal was formed millions of years before man evolved. However, human skeletons and artifacts, such as intricately structured gold chains, have been found in coal deposits. In Genesis 4 we learn that metalworking was already highly developed; Tubalcain was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron. In Genesis 7 and 8, the Deluge later buried the antediluvian civilizations in sedimentary layers of the earth's crust.
ASSUMPTION 1: human artifacts and fossils found in "old" rocks must have been there when the rocks formed.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - just because we find something in a pile of rocks does not mean it has always been there. there are many cases of modern artifacts being embedded in rocks which even we would agree are not younger than the artifact within them.

The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing due to the gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon and other factors. If the earth is billions of years old, as uniformitarian geologists insist, and it has been slowing down uniformly, then its present rotation should be zero! Furthermore, if we extrapolate backward for several billion years, the centrifugal force would have been so great that the continents would have been sent to the equatorial regions and the overall shape of the earth would have been more like a flat pancake. But, as is commonly known, the shape of the earth is spherical; its continents are not confined to the equatorial regions, and it continues to rotate on its axis at approximately 1,000 mph at the equator. The obvious conclusion is that the earth is not billions of years old.
rather than point out the assumptions of this argument, i will simply say that it is flat-out false. the earth is not slowing down anywhere near the rate creationists assign to it. this whole thing arises from the misunderstanding of the leap second. leap seconds are not added because of the earth's slowing rotation, they are added to make up for the inaccuracy in atomic clocks relating to solar time. the actual deceleration of the earth is 0.005 seconds per year per year, equating to a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

There you go, 4 reliable methods. Go and disprove them.
anybody can see why the underlying assumptions of these methods are not supported by modern science. it is not enough to simply look at some regularity of the world and extrapolate it back into time. every underlying assumption must first be examined and held up under scrutiny. that is the difference between creationist methods of dating and those methods used by scientists.

1. Weber, C. G. 1980. Common creationist attacks on geology. Creation/Evolution 2: 10-25.

edit: by the way, even if the earth were 6000 years old, this would say absolutely nothing about it being created by a god or gods. there is nothing that could count for evidence of such a claim because it is not falsifiable.
 

Master Fox

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
230
Location
The Great Fox
Please reframe from the usless posting, ok Cyris P?

I just remembered something that I learned about a few years ago. around 20 million years ago, There was a type of whale that was even bigger than the Blue Whale. It ate basically everything, including Sharks, other Whales, and land animals as well. They were found all over the world but their fossils were discovered in the Sahara Dessert. They also discovered that the Sahara Dessert used to be underwater with thousands of small tropical islands with beaches that were really close together, making the ocean around the islands seem like large rivers all connected in a net-like fassion.

Also, the Earth can't be 6000 years old because the human race has been around the Earth for over 2 million years. Man discovered the dog 14,000 years ago the latest. Man has breed those dogs into the dogs that are around today and have WITNESSED the evolution that took place between the domestic dogs of today and the ancient dogs (wolves) our ancesters discovered.

Lanowen said:
Maybe it's because you don't understand them. That's what I get when I read what you think.
No, I understand them. Its just some of it sounds farfetched to me as creation is completely illogical.

TheKeyboardist said:
Master Fox said:
I'm talking about physical adaption, not situation adaption. And adaption having to do with a physical change to become emmune to things that can harm you or kill you, even if this adaption isn't visible appearance on the creature. An Example is how bacteria are killed by anti-biotics but then some of the bacteria stop dying and begin to multiply even with the antibiotics. The anti-biotics were meant do destroy these bacteria but the bacteria have evolved to withstand it. Our bodies do the same thing against bacteria. Our body must learn how to fight off new threats to the body each day. Failure to adapt to threats means death. The doctors give us shots to help us adapt to new microscopic threats. Its evolution, but very slight evolution none-the-less. Evolution is not only major natural mutations that can only be seen visibly, Evolution also takes place in the micro-universe and is much more rapid than in the Macro-universe and we see evidence of micro-evolution everyday as we have to develop more complex antibiotics to fight the ever changing bacteria and viruses. New types of both groups are still being discovered and some have witnessed change under microscopes. Some microorganisms show physical change when adapting to antibiotics and sometimes, the effect the new microorganism has is far more dangerous then before it got used to the antibiotics. Some hospital patients die because of this.
Either way, thats not proof for evolution. God could have made us and then He could have given us the ability to adapt to our environs. Its as much proof for evolution as it is for creation.
Lets see...Evolution is adaption to the environment, whether its a microscopic change or a macroscopic mutation, its still evolution. My evidence does not support Creation because creation just states that we were poofed into existance. Creation doesn't seem to allow change and change is obviously possible so that another point for evolutionists. My statement disproves Creation and proves Evolution.

As I stated earlier, Creation has been officially disproven though it has evolved into Intellegent Design, which is Evolution exists but its controlled by some superior force like God. My statement supports Intellegent design as well but more to evolution because it doesn't prove that anything is controlling the evolution.

Ok, TheKeyboardist. I see you posting your sources and giving a lot of information but all of the stuff that you've been posting is nothing but hypothesises, assumption, ideas and BS...no proof. You stated earlier that you don't have to prove God's existance because you believe he's real and that your belief is law but we don't believe that he exists and God is the backbone of Creation and Intellegent Design. It's your job to prove that God exists and if you can't prove that he exists, then there is no debate here, just arguing. And if you refuse to prove his existance, then this debate has already been won. The winners are the Evolutionists in this debate because you, as a Creationist, have failed to prove God's existance and of his "infinite" power. Now, how can you win a debate without the only backbone of your debate. Your paralyzed without your backbone. Your fighting a losing battle.
...
...
...and your "reliable" sources don't seem at all reliable and can easily be countered. That's why I say that you haven't proven anything. It's not because I'm stuck up. Its because you actually have no evidence or prove, just false or half true facts. So how are you going to prove that Creation is real when you don't even understand what your throwing at us to prove it? Your "facts" aren't even fact! You can't win a debate with false facts. I think that you should do REAL research before coming back here. Your just proving how wrong Creation is and how illogical Creationists are. So, either except that Evolution is the truth or continue to make a fool out of yourself with your long posts of assumptions and false facts.

And creation and your religion aren't YOUR belief. You didn't think of it! The people who did are long dead and it wasn't "your" Jesus Christ who thought of it either, who believed in Abraham's believes. You believe in someone's belief who was born 90 years after his supposed Christ...who this guy wrote that first book of the New Testiment and ***** the Old Tesiment to fit his believe. This is proof enough to disprove your entire religion.
Now your going to say that this person probably heard about Jesus from a bunch of people who heard it from some other people who heard it from other people...and so on, and so on. Ever play the game Telephone? Telephone is a game where one person says something to someone next to him through whisper and that person has to repeat what the previous person told him or her. Once it reaches the last person (around 30 people from the beginning person) has to state what was told to him/her. The first person will then state what he said outloud. What the last person says is usually very different from what the first person spreaded around. This is because the message being spreaded around are being stated in their own interpretation of the message, which will distort what the message really is. This game is to show you not to believe everything you hear, see or read and explains the Theory of Gossip. One round of Telephone usually takes 2 minutes and usually contains 30 people. Now, if you expand 2 minutes to 90 years and expand the 30 people to 10s of thousands of people, that message can really be not only distorted but be made into entirely something else of a thousand times over. The final message was what is written in your New Tesiment. The original message was "When someone smites you on one cheek, offer the other cheek." which is Jesus's only teaching, the only thing he changed in the Old Testiment. The original is "if someone is going to cause you harm, defend yourself." Lets get this straight. Jesus was a hebrew rabbi, a fisherman, and a carpenter who was apparently also a pasafist (spl?) or someone who believed in non-violence. Now, I've noticed that Christians and Catholics (and all other groups who follow Jesus) claim that they are the followers of Jesus yet don't follow his only rule and don't call themselves Hebrews. So, technically, your not following Jesus so your not the followers of Jesus. Ignorance I call it. More proof of the Bible's falsehood.

Ok, let me review what we got here: We have Science VS the Bible, the Bible VS the Bible, Math VS the Bible and now History VS the Bible. So many teachings are against the Bible and even things within the Bible conflict with other things within the Bible. How can such a thing as the Bible be true with so much against it? Why haven't people noticed this yet? Are people that stupid? (yes) To conclude, the Bible isn't the truth and is heavily flawed to be true. And the Bible is the Head of the Creation Idea. Illogical and flawed, the Bible is obsilete. It should be discarded from existence except for a guild for how to live, not what to believe.

Now I wish that this debate can be seen worldwide, that everyone can see it. Religion under the Bible would be destroyed if we throw in more facts to distroy it.
 

TheKeyboardist

Smash Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
55
masterfox said:
Internet was down for me anyway.
Mmhmm. I clearly recall clicking on your profile and seeing your last activity inbetween posts. But that doesnt matter anyway, if you want to lie, thats your problem

masterfox said:
Where did I get this equation?! Third Grade! Its the basic equation for the zero times tables. Everything multiplied by Zero equals Zero. There are no exceptions. This equation is a major, major obsticle for Creationists because it can't be disproven.
You dont get what im saying, i mean, where did you pull everything from and where did you pull zero from? And i dont think thats an obstacle whatsoever, otherwise, it would come up a lot in national debates

masterfox said:
No, its just you really have no proof. You come to this debate with hypothesis which is unproven fact which brings me to something else. A theory is the samething as a hypothesus, however, in science, a theory is the samething as a fact and the opposite of a hypothesis, which few people don't realize. They stopped calling proven hypothesises "laws" a long time ago and have been calling them "theories". This also means that society has seen enough proof in Evolution to declare that its the truth and deeming it "The Theory of Evolution".
Also, (I have to bring this up) I was shocked to find out that there are no more official debates on Creation VS Evolution (evolution won btw) and the now is Intellegent Design VS Evolution. Intellegent Design is actually means that God is in control of Evolution. The former Creationists that lost the C. VS E. debate and now debating for Intellegent Design but they are also officially losing the debate as well though you creationists have too much determination. Fight for what you believe in even if its wrong, right?
So since theorey is a fact, then evolution cant possible be a theorey. And since you know so much about the national debates, why dont you state some of their irrefutable points? And dont talk about that everything * zero crap.

masterfox said:
Not likely...We don't even have the technology now to move an entire mountain without taking it apart first or even copy a mountain. 12 boulders and a hole in the side of the mountain were the 10 commandments were forge are just some of the signs. I won't go further into the signs for its not really portaining to this debate. Just wanted to point out an example where the Bible has been wrong.
Its more believable than something blowing 50 feet of dust off the moon in every possible location.

masterfox said:
Could you explain how long, accurately, have they been studying this.
Now, I don't entirely believe in that whole reverse thing but I do think this. At one point, the magnetic field was very stable and the magnetic field doesn't change often. I common magnets, the magnetic field is very stable until the magnet is very, very old and will start to lose it's magnetic feild. Once it reaches Zero, the magnet is no longer a magnet. So, this information you provided doesn't prove creation. You just proved that the world is going to end soon. Congradulations!
So? I dont believe in evolution either? What does that matter? And you THINK this. Thats absolutely no credibility in a debate. Try to back up your info before you go and decide the world will end soon. And in the bible, it says that the world will end soon as well. So congratulations! Youre twisting my points so they can prove the bible!

masterfox said:
Your right about the age of the Mississippi River but that has nothing to do with the Earth's age. Canyons were once rivers but the water eroted away the rock and carved the land from a river and to a canyon. Its called the Theory of Erotion, which is witnessed and studied, nothing to do with Evolution VS Creation.
It was a part of the source i took, i didnt want to remove it as i wanted to quote verbatim, unlike some people we know...*cough* lanowen *cough*

masterfox said:
That's one reason why there are volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. Its to ease the pressure. So, its not preposterous. Creationism is preposterous.
Yes it eases pressure but that doesnt disprove how it could hold it for so long. Do you think you can hold up a hundred pound barbell thats increasing in weight as youre lessening in strength for more than the time you muscles can support it?

masterfox said:
The geologists weren't uniformed, you were. We have to technology to make oils and petroleum in short periods of time such as twenty minutes. Those machines are equipped to do so. Nature isn't, which is why it takes millions of years to do it in nature.
So? Amazing things have happened before. If protiens can match up correctly with the odds of one to some billion billion billion, then im sure that this would be more likely to occur than that.

masterfox said:
Yes, the rotation of the Earth does slow from time to time but the rotation also speeds up. That's why Daylight Savings Time exists. I think you better do research on Why we have Daylight Savings Time. The Earth also has slow down points and speed up points in its orbit around the sun, which is why Earth's orbit isn't a perfect circle but and oval. In the Northern summer, the Earth is the closest to the Sun and speeds up, swinging around the sun and slows when going against the gravity of the sun and that's winter time. Your statement is not the whole truth by the way.
So? If the earth was to be a pancake in its average rotation, then im pretty sure that the fast points would make it something of an egg shape at least.

masterfox said:
I just did! Not very reliable either.
Your arguments were pretty easily refuted, theyre not very reliable at all.

masterfox said:
I think it is you who lacks the common sense to understand a debate. It is your job to prove everything on your side and disprove my side and its my job to disprove everything on your side and prove the stuff on my side. So, you DO have to answer "Prove it!" because just because its true to you and your creationist buddies doesn't meant that its actually true. I can care less that its true to you. Its not true to me. So you have to prove it because if you fail this one, you lose the debate. Why? because its the backbone of the whole creationist belief and if we knock it down, you won't be able to support creationism no matter how much you ***** about it, which is the case.
Im a christian. Its a belief, its mostly in faith though there is proof for the bible. Now since its a belief, i believe it to be the absolute truth. And youre saying it isnt. So i expect you to bring up some argument on why its not true. And speaking of which, prove evolution. I belive ive refuted all of your alleged "facts".

masterfox said:
Most people are afraid of dying. The ones that aren't die without question in acts of bravery or commit suicide. He had enough evidence to turn his hypothesis into a full scientific theory.
So when you say that, youre saying Christians are afraid of dying. Well, prove the civil war then. The south were mainly protestants, all brave and died for their cause, i wouldnt call that fear of death under any cause. How bout the spanish inquisition? Protestants believed in God till the end, even through excruciating torture. If youre interested, i can direct you to a link depicting many of the gruesome tortures protestants recieved and still did not give up their belief. I would never in my life call that fear of death.

masterfox said:
This is one of the many reasons why I think the Bible is incorrect. Those other religions had the same chances as Christianity in being right though I think their wrong.
Then id say that evolution has the same chance of them all. Evolution is a religion whether you consider it or not. I brought this up in a previous post and no one replied to it, so im in belief that you guys have no opposition to it.

[quote-masterfox] Alchemy failed though. [/quote]

Then thats what evolution might one day come to.

masterfox said:
Ok, About that whole dog thing being evidence to Evolution, he's something to add to it. One of the Science teachers in my school used to breed and raise dogs. He would give the dogs different tasks to do, different than their bodies were theoretically designed to do. One of those dogs gave birth to a new breed of dog, a dog made for the task he was giving the parents to do. So, he witnessed the birth of a new breed of dog. That is evidence of Evolution, enough evidence to prove that evolution is correct and shows evolution in the macro-universe. So, no evidence in Evolution, huh? I think that's more than enough evidence! That's why evolution and not creation is taught in school. Creation is juat a hypothesis and Evolution is a scientific theory which means its a fact. If you want sources, I have sources...
All that proves is adaptation. Who says people cant adapt or dogs cant adapt? Now, a cell that literally came out of nowhere needed to adapt so it turned into a human? The dog stayed interspecies, did it not?

snex said:
why didnt you mention that these "self-reversals" happen to rock on land, but not to rock under water, and that underwater rocks are the ones measured for polarity reversals?
Source please.

snex said:
this is just plain false. show your math or dont even bother.
Why dont you tell me why its false? and i dont want to show you all the math. With this huge project, i can barely get on the internet once a month now. Im typing this from my hour or so of free time. Writing all that math will just kill my other response time. If you are curious, why dont you research it and do the math yourself and disprove it?

snex said:
ASSUMPTION 1: deposition rates have remained the same throughout the life of the mississippi river.
STRENGTH: [2/5] - weather is unpredictable, both in the long term and the short term. ice ages would increase the age considerably, as sedimentation rates would be much slower (or even stopped) during ice ages. simply applying a constant rate is inappropriate in this case.

ASSUMPTION 2: the earth is the same age as the mississippi river.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - this assumption is completely unwarranted. the sears tower is 32 years old, so shall we conclude that chicago is 32 years old?

ASSUMPTION 3: the mississippi river's position has not changed.
STRENGTH: [2/5] - rivers do not stay in the same place over large periods of time. in fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that the river delta and gulf entrance once extended all the way up to illinois[1].

ASSUMPTION 4: sea level has stayed relatively constant over the life of the mississippi river.
STRENGTH: [1/5] - one cannot simply "count the total amount of sediment" if the sea level has varied over long periods of time.
Read above reply.

snex said:
ASSUMPTION 1: the pressure of natural gas and petroleum wells has remained the same for the duration of their lifetimes.
STRENGTH: [2/5] - pressures do not simply poof into existence, they build up over time. furthermore, if the rock permeability was as creationists claim, such pressures would have never built up to begin with.

ASSUMPTION 2: the earth is the same age as its petroleum and natural gas wells.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - once again, this assumption is unwarranted. wells could be relatively young due to seepage from other wells.
Why dont you read what ou are quoting? When did it say that it stayed the same? It builds up!

Youre the ones that came up with this idea that petrol and natural gas must be refined over a long period of time. So strike the fact that it could be young. And once again, your assumption is incorrect.

snex said:
ASSUMPTION 1: quick-forming conditions of the lab exist(ed) in nature.
STRENGTH: [3/5] - lab conditions for forming coal and oil are far beyond the natural conditions that form coal naturally. lab conditions can control many variables with extreme precision, whereas the earth cannot do so naturally. we also know that coal beds show history of significant time, such as stream channels, roots, and soil horizons.

ASSUMPTION 2: the earth is the same age as the coal within it.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - seeing a pattern yet?
Read above reply.

And nope, not anymore.

snex said:
ASSUMPTION 1: local floods indicate a global flood.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - polystrate fossils and coal beds were indeed made by floods, but if this is the case, why is the world not covered in them? why are they sparse and near bodies of water (or former bodies of water), as expected if the floods were local? if creationists want to claim a global flood, then the earth should be effected similarly everywhere.
Well, the Bible talks of a global flood, so yes. And if you didnt know, there are things called changes in elevation. Also, layers pile over ground over time so they get covered up. Duh.

snex said:
ASSUMPTION 1: human artifacts and fossils found in "old" rocks must have been there when the rocks formed.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - just because we find something in a pile of rocks does not mean it has always been there. there are many cases of modern artifacts being embedded in rocks which even we would agree are not younger than the artifact within them.
Then why do evolutionists do it? Then id say, you just refuted one of evolution's arguments, congratulations! You just joined the rest of the evolutionists that stupidly refuted their own beliefs.

snex said:
rather than point out the assumptions of this argument, i will simply say that it is flat-out false. the earth is not slowing down anywhere near the rate creationists assign to it. this whole thing arises from the misunderstanding of the leap second. leap seconds are not added because of the earth's slowing rotation, they are added to make up for the inaccuracy in atomic clocks relating to solar time. the actual deceleration of the earth is 0.005 seconds per year per year, equating to a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.
You know the drill. Source.

snex said:
edit: by the way, even if the earth were 6000 years old, this would say absolutely nothing about it being created by a god or gods. there is nothing that could count for evidence of such a claim because it is not falsifiable.
It would disprove evolution. Were you joking or did you really not know what i was going at?

masterfox said:
Please reframe from the usless posting, ok Cyris P?
Thank you.

masterfox said:
I just remembered something that I learned about a few years ago. around 20 million years ago, There was a type of whale that was even bigger than the Blue Whale. It ate basically everything, including Sharks, other Whales, and land animals as well. They were found all over the world but their fossils were discovered in the Sahara Dessert. They also discovered that the Sahara Dessert used to be underwater with thousands of small tropical islands with beaches that were really close together, making the ocean around the islands seem like large rivers all connected in a net-like fassion.
The sahara used to be underwater because of the flood. And the bible talks of a giant fish. If there was a great a fish as the bible says, then God definetly can summon a big whale.

masterfox said:
Also, the Earth can't be 6000 years old because the human race has been around the Earth for over 2 million years. Man discovered the dog 14,000 years ago the latest. Man has breed those dogs into the dogs that are around today and have WITNESSED the evolution that took place between the domestic dogs of today and the ancient dogs (wolves) our ancesters discovered.
Didnt you hear me refute that already? Maybe you should read my posts more.

masterfox said:
Lets see...Evolution is adaption to the environment, whether its a microscopic change or a macroscopic mutation, its still evolution. My evidence does not support Creation because creation just states that we were poofed into existance. Creation doesn't seem to allow change and change is obviously possible so that another point for evolutionists. My statement disproves Creation and proves Evolution.
Where did you get the info that creation doesnt support change? How bout that major change in the bible from peoples life spans going from 900 years to 70? Id say thats a pretty big change. And no, it doesnt prove evolution.

masterfox said:
Ok, TheKeyboardist. I see you posting your sources and giving a lot of information but all of the stuff that you've been posting is nothing but hypothesises, assumption, ideas and BS...no proof. You stated earlier that you don't have to prove God's existance because you believe he's real and that your belief is law but we don't believe that he exists and God is the backbone of Creation and Intellegent Design. It's your job to prove that God exists and if you can't prove that he exists, then there is no debate here, just arguing. And if you refuse to prove his existance, then this debate has already been won. The winners are the Evolutionists in this debate because you, as a Creationist, have failed to prove God's existance and of his "infinite" power. Now, how can you win a debate without the only backbone of your debate. Your paralyzed without your backbone. Your fighting a losing battle.
...
...
...and your "reliable" sources don't seem at all reliable and can easily be countered. That's why I say that you haven't proven anything. It's not because I'm stuck up. Its because you actually have no evidence or prove, just false or half true facts. So how are you going to prove that Creation is real when you don't even understand what your throwing at us to prove it? Your "facts" aren't even fact! You can't win a debate with false facts. I think that you should do REAL research before coming back here. Your just proving how wrong Creation is and how illogical Creationists are. So, either except that Evolution is the truth or continue to make a fool out of yourself with your long posts of assumptions and false facts.
Why do you keep saying that before i reply? I just refuted your counters.

masterfox said:
And creation and your religion aren't YOUR belief. You didn't think of it! The people who did are long dead and it wasn't "your" Jesus Christ who thought of it either, who believed in Abraham's believes. You believe in someone's belief who was born 90 years after his supposed Christ...who this guy wrote that first book of the New Testiment and ***** the Old Tesiment to fit his believe. This is proof enough to disprove your entire religion.
Now your going to say that this person probably heard about Jesus from a bunch of people who heard it from some other people who heard it from other people...and so on, and so on. Ever play the game Telephone? Telephone is a game where one person says something to someone next to him through whisper and that person has to repeat what the previous person told him or her. Once it reaches the last person (around 30 people from the beginning person) has to state what was told to him/her. The first person will then state what he said outloud. What the last person says is usually very different from what the first person spreaded around. This is because the message being spreaded around are being stated in their own interpretation of the message, which will distort what the message really is. This game is to show you not to believe everything you hear, see or read and explains the Theory of Gossip. One round of Telephone usually takes 2 minutes and usually contains 30 people. Now, if you expand 2 minutes to 90 years and expand the 30 people to 10s of thousands of people, that message can really be not only distorted but be made into entirely something else of a thousand times over. The final message was what is written in your New Tesiment. The original message was "When someone smites you on one cheek, offer the other cheek." which is Jesus's only teaching, the only thing he changed in the Old Testiment. The original is "if someone is going to cause you harm, defend yourself." Lets get this straight. Jesus was a hebrew rabbi, a fisherman, and a carpenter who was apparently also a pasafist (spl?) or someone who believed in non-violence. Now, I've noticed that Christians and Catholics (and all other groups who follow Jesus) claim that they are the followers of Jesus yet don't follow his only rule and don't call themselves Hebrews. So, technically, your not following Jesus so your not the followers of Jesus. Ignorance I call it. More proof of the Bible's falsehood.
You say your school has 23 classrooms. Well it isnt your school so why would you say something like that? My beliefs are mine. I can believe what i want. Therefore, they are my beliefs. Theyre not the belifs of the person that created them because i believe them. Its not YOUR belif or THEIRS, so its MINE.

And if youre going to put it that way, why do your believe in ideas that came after darwin? Those scientists were born long after darwin. So i guess thats enough to disprove your belief as well. And that message wouldnt have been distorted because the KJV of 1611 was translated from the direct greek and roman scrolls and it still lasts today. The KJV of 1611 being the one i use.

And dont you dare twist the words of the bible around like that. Jesus never said that you must be hebrew to be saved. Show me where in the bible it says that. Ill have tons on info to disprove it, once you get around to actually reading the bible that is. Why dont you read it before you mutate it? And Jesus did all those things. You can play baseball but does that make you a pro baseball player? You can cut wood but will that make you a carpenter? You can write an essay but will that make you an english compository scholar? Absolutely false. Go do some reserch before you ASSUME something as profound as that.

masterfox said:
Ok, let me review what we got here: We have Science VS the Bible, the Bible VS the Bible, Math VS the Bible and now History VS the Bible. So many teachings are against the Bible and even things within the Bible conflict with other things within the Bible. How can such a thing as the Bible be true with so much against it? Why haven't people noticed this yet? Are people that stupid? (yes) To conclude, the Bible isn't the truth and is heavily flawed to be true. And the Bible is the Head of the Creation Idea. Illogical and flawed, the Bible is obsilete. It should be discarded from existence except for a guild for how to live, not what to believe.
So? Does that make it false? If everyone cheats at cards and one person doesnt, does that mean that one person is immoral? You make absolutely no sense here. You say I assume too much, yet you assume all the more. Hypocracy.

And i dont care what you think. You can THINK its flawed and illogical but no one cares. Thats not what a debate is for. Just because you say it is flawed, does that make it so? Is what you declare the truth? If you say a rock is a stick, will it be right? Think again before you enter a debate.

Just to make it clear, i had and still have a VERY large project going on. I cant seem to find too much time to get online.

Also, a point. You say things evolve to face its circumstances. Well the ice age came on very suddnely. There had been nothing like it before and undoubtedly, nothing had anything to withstand the cold. Yet, many living things survived. Everything should have died.
 

NG7

Smash Lord
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,327
Master Fox said:
the Bible is obsilete. It should be discarded from existence except for a guild for how to live, not what to believe.
While this may be your opinion, i'd like to caution people on comments like these. Saying that it should be discarded and how you think it should be used doesn't really prove or disprove any side of the argument. All you're doing is attacking the religion, which ultimately wastes everyone's time in this debate.

Comments like the following are also abit silly and won't do much for your argument:

TheKeyboardist said:
Mmhmm. I clearly recall clicking on your profile and seeing your last activity inbetween posts. But that doesnt matter anyway, if you want to lie, thats your problem
I haven't heard a clear explanation from the theory of Evolution/the Big Bang side of the argument about where the matter that created the universe came from. Isn't it the same obstacle you say Creationism has Master Fox?
 

Mediocre

Ziz
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
5,578
Location
Earth Bet
NG7 said:
I haven't heard a clear explanation from the theory of Evolution/the Big Bang side of the argument about where the matter that created the universe came from. Isn't it the same obstacle you say Creationism has Master Fox?
Well, the big bang side of the debate is given a little more credence because of the fact that we can see matter around us, all the time. God does not have that same evidence in his favor.
 

snex

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
3,085
Location
Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by snex
why didnt you mention that these "self-reversals" happen to rock on land, but not to rock under water, and that underwater rocks are the ones measured for polarity reversals?

Source please.
so called "self-reversals" are due to the rock being moved from its original location. this does not happen to lava that cools under water. another interesting thing to note is that the patterns of rock that form the idea of when polar reversals happened match to an extremely high degree in their radiometric dates. if neither magnetic pole reversals nor radiometric dating work, why do they line up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by snex
this is just plain false. show your math or dont even bother.

Why dont you tell me why its false? and i dont want to show you all the math. With this huge project, i can barely get on the internet once a month now. Im typing this from my hour or so of free time. Writing all that math will just kill my other response time. If you are curious, why dont you research it and do the math yourself and disprove it?
you made the claim, you back it up. it is not my job to show you why you are wrong. it is your job to make accurate claims and back them up upon request.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snex
ASSUMPTION 1: deposition rates have remained the same throughout the life of the mississippi river.
STRENGTH: [2/5] - weather is unpredictable, both in the long term and the short term. ice ages would increase the age considerably, as sedimentation rates would be much slower (or even stopped) during ice ages. simply applying a constant rate is inappropriate in this case.

ASSUMPTION 2: the earth is the same age as the mississippi river.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - this assumption is completely unwarranted. the sears tower is 32 years old, so shall we conclude that chicago is 32 years old?

ASSUMPTION 3: the mississippi river's position has not changed.
STRENGTH: [2/5] - rivers do not stay in the same place over large periods of time. in fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that the river delta and gulf entrance once extended all the way up to illinois[1].

ASSUMPTION 4: sea level has stayed relatively constant over the life of the mississippi river.
STRENGTH: [1/5] - one cannot simply "count the total amount of sediment" if the sea level has varied over long periods of time.

Read above reply.
thats all you have? so you admit these assumptions underly your "method?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by snex
ASSUMPTION 1: the pressure of natural gas and petroleum wells has remained the same for the duration of their lifetimes.
STRENGTH: [2/5] - pressures do not simply poof into existence, they build up over time. furthermore, if the rock permeability was as creationists claim, such pressures would have never built up to begin with.

ASSUMPTION 2: the earth is the same age as its petroleum and natural gas wells.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - once again, this assumption is unwarranted. wells could be relatively young due to seepage from other wells.

Why dont you read what ou are quoting? When did it say that it stayed the same? It builds up!

Youre the ones that came up with this idea that petrol and natural gas must be refined over a long period of time. So strike the fact that it could be young. And once again, your assumption is incorrect.
perhaps you should read closer. your claim was that the extremely high pressures could not have existed in the rocks for long periods of time, but such pressures did not necessarily exist in them for long periods of time. also, you ignored the fact that if the rocks could not handle those pressures, they would not have built up to that point in the first place. this is simple physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snex
ASSUMPTION 1: quick-forming conditions of the lab exist(ed) in nature.
STRENGTH: [3/5] - lab conditions for forming coal and oil are far beyond the natural conditions that form coal naturally. lab conditions can control many variables with extreme precision, whereas the earth cannot do so naturally. we also know that coal beds show history of significant time, such as stream channels, roots, and soil horizons.

ASSUMPTION 2: the earth is the same age as the coal within it.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - seeing a pattern yet?

Read above reply.

And nope, not anymore.
ill give you a hint. you are claiming some specific feature of the earth is young, therefore the earth is young. this is invalid reasoning. my hair is only a few months old, but i am 23 years old.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snex
ASSUMPTION 1: local floods indicate a global flood.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - polystrate fossils and coal beds were indeed made by floods, but if this is the case, why is the world not covered in them? why are they sparse and near bodies of water (or former bodies of water), as expected if the floods were local? if creationists want to claim a global flood, then the earth should be effected similarly everywhere.

Well, the Bible talks of a global flood, so yes. And if you didnt know, there are things called changes in elevation. Also, layers pile over ground over time so they get covered up. Duh.
what does the bible have to do with anything? i thought we used facts and evidence to discover the world, not ancient fairy tales. did the writers of the bible even know how big the world was? how would they have known if the whole world was covered?

and what do changes in elevation have to do with anything? if polystrate fossils are caused by floods, and there was a global flood, then polystrate fossils should be everywhere trees existed. yet they are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snex
ASSUMPTION 1: human artifacts and fossils found in "old" rocks must have been there when the rocks formed.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - just because we find something in a pile of rocks does not mean it has always been there. there are many cases of modern artifacts being embedded in rocks which even we would agree are not younger than the artifact within them.

Then why do evolutionists do it? Then id say, you just refuted one of evolution's arguments, congratulations! You just joined the rest of the evolutionists that stupidly refuted their own beliefs.
once again you display your ignorance to the processes of science. scientists can tell the difference between a true fossil and something that has made its way into a rock after it was formed. the rock and the object will have telltale signs, but creationists ignore this to push their agendas. some creationists even continue to claim that things like the castenedolo skull are fossils when there is plain evidence of recent burial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snex
rather than point out the assumptions of this argument, i will simply say that it is flat-out false. the earth is not slowing down anywhere near the rate creationists assign to it. this whole thing arises from the misunderstanding of the leap second. leap seconds are not added because of the earth's slowing rotation, they are added to make up for the inaccuracy in atomic clocks relating to solar time. the actual deceleration of the earth is 0.005 seconds per year per year, equating to a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

You know the drill. Source.
surely you jest! anybody can go to the NIST (national institute of standards and technology) website and see them explain their own atomic clocks! but hey, creationists would know more than the people that invented the atomic clock that needs the leap seconds, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by snex
edit: by the way, even if the earth were 6000 years old, this would say absolutely nothing about it being created by a god or gods. there is nothing that could count for evidence of such a claim because it is not falsifiable.

It would disprove evolution. Were you joking or did you really not know what i was going at?
and what would you put in its place were it disproven? magic words spoken by a sky fairy? science would balk at the suggestion. come up with something falsifiable and maybe somebody will listen.. that is, somebody other than your church group and the uneducated masses on the internet.

edit: reply to ng7: the matter was always there in the form of energy. einstein's famous equation shows that mass and energy are interchangable. the big bang is merely the expansion of spacetime 13.7 billion years ago. despite what some people will claim, nobody knows what caused the big bang, just that it happened. after around 300,000 years after the big bang, the universe was cool enough for matter to start forming out of the energy.
 

Master Fox

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
230
Location
The Great Fox
TheKeyboardist said:
Mmhmm. I clearly recall clicking on your profile and seeing your last activity inbetween posts. But that doesnt matter anyway, if you want to lie, thats your problem
First of all, when? I don't lie! Internet was down for me for some workers were playing around with cable. And last week, my area of Florida was hit directly by the eye and the eye wall of Hurricane Wilma and I was without power for a week. You are mistaken.
Second, what does this have to do with the debate?
TheKeyboardist said:
You dont get what im saying, i mean, where did you pull everything from and where did you pull zero from? And i dont think thats an obstacle whatsoever, otherwise, it would come up a lot in national debates
Well, the Zero stands for the number of matter at and before the time of creation and infinity stands for the power of God applied to the matter. And perhaps, the official debaters overlooked this equation since its so simple. Most people look for the more complicated stuff when trying to figure out something complicated.
TheKeyboardist said:
And dont talk about that everything * zero crap.
Why? Its true and its a valid point!
TheKeyboardist said:
So since theorey is a fact, then evolution cant possible be a theorey.
Why do you think in science, its called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. That means that researchers have found enough proof and evidence to stop calling it a hypothesis and start calling it a theory. And Darwin wasn't the only researcher in evolution. There were tons of researchers after him that have found more evidence of evolution. Some have to do with the fossils and others have been witnessed which I have already explained.
TheKeyboardist said:
And since you know so much about the national debates, why dont you state some of their irrefutable points?
Never said I researched the national devates on Evolution VS Creation. I just read an article in the news paper saying that the debate was over and the Evoltionist won the debate and now the new debate (same guys btw) is Evolution VS Intellegent Design. The creationists excepted Evolution but applied their Creationist beliefs into it.
TheKeyboardist said:
Its more believable than something blowing 50 feet of dust off the moon in every possible location.
Moving a mountain is more believable than 50 feet of dust off the moon?! Are you mad!? Besides...stop bring up the moon! Like I said, the moon has a lot less gravity than the Earth and on a beach, you don't sink into the sand (quicksand doesn't count because quicksand is more water than sand and the moon has no water). Its also possible that most of the dust that lands on the moon doesn't stay on the moon because of the moons gravity. This has been researched and was written in textbooks...and that's where I got this from. So stop bringing up the moon...
TheKeyboardist said:
So? I dont believe in evolution either? What does that matter? And you THINK this. Thats absolutely no credibility in a debate. Try to back up your info before you go and decide the world will end soon. And in the bible, it says that the world will end soon as well. So congratulations! Youre twisting my points so they can prove the bible!
There are many more source than the bible that state the world is going to end soon just so you know. And you should follow your own advice.
TheKeyboardist said:
Yes it eases pressure but that doesnt disprove how it could hold it for so long. Do you think you can hold up a hundred pound barbell thats increasing in weight as youre lessening in strength for more than the time you muscles can support it?
I believe snex already answered this with:
snex said:
Originally Posted by snex
ASSUMPTION 1: the pressure of natural gas and petroleum wells has remained the same for the duration of their lifetimes.
STRENGTH: [2/5] - pressures do not simply poof into existence, they build up over time. furthermore, if the rock permeability was as creationists claim, such pressures would have never built up to begin with.

ASSUMPTION 2: the earth is the same age as its petroleum and natural gas wells.
STRENGTH: [0/5] - once again, this assumption is unwarranted. wells could be relatively young due to seepage from other wells.
I'll get to what you wrote under it later in this post. Moving on!
TheKeyboardist said:
It was a part of the source i took, i didnt want to remove it as i wanted to quote verbatim, unlike some people we know...*cough* lanowen *cough*
What's this?! You admitted that you didn't take the whole truth?!
TheKeyboardist said:
So? Amazing things have happened before. If protiens can match up correctly with the odds of one to some billion billion billion, then im sure that this would be more likely to occur than that.
According to the quack with the Ph. D. you were quoting in your first, second and third posts of this debate. And what I just researched on proteins, proteins can easily be converted into another type of protein the body needs naturally. That dramatically increases the chances from billions, billions, billions to one to easily possible odds. Yes, amazing things have happened nut nothing that is impossible like the universe being created by God using nothing but his great power and oils and patroleum being formed in 20 minutes under natural curcumstances.
TheKeyboardist said:
Your arguments were pretty easily refuted, theyre not very reliable at all.
Funny...you I didn't see you refute anything...! Where did you refute? I don't see you refute anything...! You must be imagining things.
TheKeyboardist said:
Im a christian. Its a belief, its mostly in faith though there is proof for the bible. Now since its a belief, i believe it to be the absolute truth. And youre saying it isnt. So i expect you to bring up some argument on why its not true. And speaking of which, prove evolution. I belive ive refuted all of your alleged "facts".
Now your seeing and imagining things...! Refute the facts?! Sorry but I just don't see it.
TheKeyboardist said:
So when you say that, youre saying Christians are afraid of dying. Well, prove the civil war then. The south were mainly protestants, all brave and died for their cause, i wouldnt call that fear of death under any cause. How bout the spanish inquisition? Protestants believed in God till the end, even through excruciating torture. If youre interested, i can direct you to a link depicting many of the gruesome tortures protestants recieved and still did not give up their belief. I would never in my life call that fear of death.
I never said "All" nor "Christians". Keywords are "Most" and "people" and most people fear death when the person is in their deathbed and realize that they don't want to die. Usually torture, war, etc. won't change someone's belief. And I'm refering to people that aren't religious. And not just on the deathbed but some people driven into a corner with no way out. Fear is a factor. Well anyway, this really doesn't have anything to do with the debate.
TheKeyboardist said:
Then id say that evolution has the same chance of them all. Evolution is a religion whether you consider it or not. I brought this up in a previous post and no one replied to it, so im in belief that you guys have no opposition to it.
No because there is more proof in evolution than any religion. There is no proof in religion. Stop being so stubborn and open your eyes, you'll see the proof we've been trying to show you.

TheKeyboardist said:
masterfox said:
Alchemy failed though.
Then thats what evolution might one day come to.
No because Evolution has been proven while Alchemy proved to fail. Alchemy was a science to change lead to gold with the mixture of basic chemistry and religion...your religion...at least the Christain version of Alchemy. The Chinesse Alchemy actually had some success because they used more science than religion. So, therefore, The failure of Alchemy was also the failure of the Bible, not of true science.
TheKeyboardist said:
All that proves is adaptation. Who says people cant adapt or dogs cant adapt? Now, a cell that literally came out of nowhere needed to adapt so it turned into a human? The dog stayed interspecies, did it not?
Physical Adaption = Evolution. And the dogs have shown much physical change if you haven't noticed. Yes, the dog does stay interspecies but that's only 14,000 years of evolution. Now lets take a look at Human minor evolution: race for one thing. Another is the Y chromosome in human males, shrinking. Now, its like the empire state building (X chromosome) to a 6 ft human (Y chromosome) when 2 million years ago, the X and Y chromosomes were the same size. Now, there is a type of lizard on this world that already has gotten rid of the Y chromosome in all of its species. All the lizards are female and are still able to reproduce with unfertilized eggs. That's still evolution.
TheKeyboardist said:
The sahara used to be underwater because of the flood. And the bible talks of a giant fish. If there was a great a fish as the bible says, then God definetly can summon a big whale.
Humans weren't around to see this whale and this whale looked more like a monster than any modern whale. And not the entire Sahara was under water. Like I said before...a bunch of islands with tons of rivers that weren't all that deep...maybe 60 ft deep. And the entire world wasn't flooded either...infact, it was only the sahara and florida that were under water at this time. This was also the time where the ancestors of the lamb where monsterous predators with powerful jaws. And also...22 million years ago.
TheKeyboardist said:
Didnt you hear me refute that already? Maybe you should read my posts more.
I do read your post actually, several times before I post. You refuted nothing. All I see is refusing evidence. The scientist call it evidence...!
TheKeyboardist said:
Where did you get the info that creation doesnt support change? How bout that major change in the bible from peoples life spans going from 900 years to 70? Id say thats a pretty big change. And no, it doesnt prove evolution.
Congradulations! you just proved that th bible can't be trusted because of falslihood and exaggeration.
BTW...did you know that there are many different branches of Creationism that argue with each other? Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolutionism, and Neo Creationism...all of them are unproven ideas...can't debate for them all.source
Also, this link is important to this debate since it has to do with this debate exactly.
TheKeyboardist said:
Why do you keep saying that before i reply? I just refuted your counters.
I've yet to see any.
TheKeyboardist said:
You say your school has 23 classrooms.
Where the hell does it say that! Now I know your seeing things...!
TheKeyboardist said:
Well it isnt your school so why would you say something like that? My beliefs are mine. I can believe what i want. Therefore, they are my beliefs. Theyre not the belifs of the person that created them because i believe them. Its not YOUR belif or THEIRS, so its MINE.
Advice: Rethink that. If you were born and raised, being exposed to something else, you would be defending that instead of your Bible and you too would be against what the Bible says. Do you think that no matter what religion you were raised with, you would still believe in your Bible if you were buddist? No! You'd be Buddist is you were raised under Budah. Therefore, those beliefs that you were raised with aren't your own true beliefs. You were plainly brainwashed from and early age...and age where all are weakminded.
TheKeyboardist said:
And that message wouldnt have been distorted because the KJV of 1611 was translated from the direct greek and roman scrolls and it still lasts today. The KJV of 1611 being the one i use.
You assume that they were translated properly. There is proof in mistranslation in the Bible.
TheKeyboardist said:
And dont you dare twist the words of the bible around like that. Jesus never said that you must be hebrew to be saved. Show me where in the bible it says that.
It wasn't in the bible that was written in. It was his own scrolls that was written in, scrolls that were discovered in Israel. I say some documentary on it. So, even Jesus's scrolls are against what the Bible says. Pathetic...
TheKeyboardist said:
Go do some reserch before you ASSUME something as profound as that.
I did research. This source was a documentary on Jesus after some discovery of some of his writings and his remains. I didn't assume anything. Truth hurts, doesn't it. Except it.
TheKeyboardist said:
Also, a point. You say things evolve to face its circumstances. Well the ice age came on very suddnely. There had been nothing like it before and undoubtedly, nothing had anything to withstand the cold. Yet, many living things survived. Everything should have died.
Do some research why don't you! There wasn't an Ice Age. There were around 16 Ice Ages, humans only in 4 of them.
And they had to evolve to survive but in the mean time (before they evolved to cope with the ice ages), they migraded South to warmer areas, sought shelter and started fires (humans anyway...with the fires I mean). As for the ones that didn't adapt fast enough parished.
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
“Past field reversals are recorded in the "frozen" magnetic domains of solidified lava that welled up along spreading mid-ocean ridges. Since the sea floor spreads at a fairly constant rate, this results in broad "stripes" from which the past magnetic field direction can be easily read by simply pulling a magnetometer along the sea floor. However, since no existing sea floor is much older than 250 Myr in age, other methods are neccesary for detecting older reversals. Most sedimentary rocks incorporate tiny amounts of iron rich minerals, whose orientation is influenced by the ambient magnetic field at the time at which they formed. Under good conditions, it is thus possible to extract information of the variations in magentic field from many kinds of sedmentary rocks. However, subsequent diagenesis may erase evidence of the original field.
Because the magnetic field is a global process, finding similar patterns of magnetic variations at different sites is one method used to correlate age across different locations. Because reversals may occur several times per million years, geomagnetic dating can allow for the determination of more precise relative ages then radiometric dating, which often have an error of several percent at an age of greater than 100 Myr.”
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

Your bringing up of magnetic decay in the earth’s magnetic field shows more evidence for an older earth in the long run. Stop trying to talk about what you understand so little.

“Confusion sometimes arises over the misconception that the regular insertion of leap seconds every few years indicates that the Earth should stop rotating within a few millennia. The confusion arises because some mistake leap seconds for a measure of the rate at which the Earth is slowing. The 1 second increments are, however, indications of the accumulated difference in time between the two systems. (Also, it is important to note that the current difference in the length of day from 86,400 seconds is the accumulation over nearly two centuries, not just the previous year.) As an example, the situation is similar to what would happen if a person owned a watch that lost 2 seconds per day. If it were set to a perfect clock today, the watch would be found to be slow by 2 seconds tomorrow. At the end of a month, the watch will be roughly a minute in error (30 days of 2 second error accumulated each day). The person would then find it convenient to reset the watch by one minute to have the correct time again.
This scenario is analogous to that encountered with the leap second. The difference is that instead of setting the clock that is running slow, we choose to set the clock that is keeping a uniform, precise time. The reason for this is that we can change the time on an atomic clock, while it is not possible to alter the Earth's rotational speed to match the atomic clocks! Currently the Earth runs slow at roughly 2 milliseconds per day. After 500 days, the difference between the Earth rotation time and the atomic time would be 1 second. Instead of allowing this to happen, a leap second is inserted to bring the two times closer together.”
-http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html

To actually think the earth is slowing its rotation at that speed is ludicrous. The deceleration would have to be observable in a lifetime.

Edit: I tried searching for this "claim" that too little moon dust appeared on the moon and that all of nasa was hiding the truth from the world, but all the sites with the claim both were christian-affiliated and had no sources which showed this except other christian affiliated sites... Then I found this:

"‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’. For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either). See also Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (Technical)."
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

I know what you're probably going to say: that site is uncredible and doesn't have sources to back up that information. Wait, like the original site you got the claim from?
 

snex

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
3,085
Location
Chicago, IL
id like to add that the site about moon dust that blazedaces is quoting is that of a young earth creationist organization. they have an entire page of "arguments creationists should not use."
 

ScaryMunky

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
408
Nowadays I don't know what to believe as far as the beginning of life and such.. I used to be pretty religious because of how I was raised. What makes me really think is the following:

Emotions. Can this be explained biologically? Is there something in the human anatomy that explains why people feel sad, happy, get nervous, cry or laugh? I think these have been explained with parts of the brain or something.. but it doesn't really make sense. The way we can think so deeply about the meaning of life and the beginning of the world and mankind and such, these things, I think, are because of our "spirit". I think that if there wasn't a higher being of "divine power" that created us, we wouldn't have a spirit, and without that I don't think we'd be able to have complex thoughts/emotions and such. We'd just be walking mammals with a mindset much different than we have now; i.e. we'd walk, eat, sleep and reproduce.. we'd do what is necessary to survive. We'd pretty much just be apes with less fur. I don't think apes ponder the meaning of life or think as deeply as we do, and I think it's our spirit that enables us to do things like that. *shrugs*
 

null

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
161
Location
Godfrey, Illinois
Emotions come from intelligence, other intelligent creatures have emotions too, they just express them differently, and without words.

Being able to think about things like where we came from, and where we go comes from the human ability of higher thought processes.
 

ScaryMunky

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
408
Ok, I took that conversation out of my last post. Here it is; a conversation a friend of mine had a while back on MSN. Not sure how much this actually contributes to the argument of creationism vs evolution, but interesting nonetheless..

Our Conversation
 

hero_oftime333

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
38
Ok, I personally believe in big bang cuz there is no better theory. There isn't a 100% correct theory as this is something that can't be proved. Possibly a god made it. 1, 2, 3, 4 gods made it. A piece of cheese could have blown up and made everything in this world for all we know.

I all know is that making this universe was a very, very bad move :)
 

Master Fox

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
230
Location
The Great Fox
ScaryMunky, well...your actually right about the soul but, you don't need a God for souls to exist either and your assuming that only humans have souls. All living things have souls, even plants. I think this guy can explain it better...

Master Ridley said:
Ghost, zombies, demons, souls, mystics (angels & devils), etc are real.

Ghost are souls that that haven't left the Earth. A ghost that has a mission will remain on Earth until they complete their mission. However, Ghosts who, when alive, die with a strong emotion active, will remain on the Earth with no way to pass on. The only way to get these doomed souls to leave Earth is to destroy that soul, which can only be done with Shamanic powers, by tearing it apart from the core of the soul. A person without Shamanic powers can only see them when their spiritual wavelength matches of those of the ghosts'.

Zombies are the only once that you will see everyday...but you won't realize it. Zombies are people without souls and most zombies don't realize that they are zombies. If you fall in love with a zombie, prepare to become a zombie yourself for they will steal your soul to devour it...even if they don't realize it. You can tell if a person is a zombie even if you don't have Shamanic powers by noticing details about them. They have pale skin, pale hair, they look weakened and have shadows under their eyes and their blood looks dead and deseased and chunky...basically, quagulated. Blood quagulation is only happens when a person is dead. If you have Shamanic powers or if your spiritual wavelength allows to see the spiritual, just look at their chest. Symtoms of zombie victims is quick loss of hair and skin color and start so show signs of the appearance of a zombie. To save a victim, beat up or kill the Zombie that stole their soul, capture the soul and return it to the owner but make sure you do it right away before the soul is destroyed. Zombies aware that they are zombies are able to steal souls instantly if they are confronted and can teleport to get away from persuers. Zombies are nothing like movie zombies. You may of seen zombies and not realize it because they act like they're people. Zombies can't steal souls with barriers.

Demons are magical creatures with dark auras that now, only can be seen rarely while long ago, they all can be seen but for some reason, a person without shamanic powers can only see them if their spiritual wavelength matches the demons'. Not all demons are evil but many of them are, including the demon king, Daborodorf and 3 of the 4 Demon Gods. I have encountered many demons in my day and my previous life. I've met the Demon King and the 3 evil Demon gods. My previous life was killed by one of the demon gods and is now trapped within my soul. Sometimes I can feel it tearing at it from within.

Souls are all around us. Everyone that isn't a zombie has one. All souls are the size of a fist and are perfect spheres. Souls come in all colors, each color representing how much love it has ranging from white to black, white being pure and black being heartless. Soul heat goes with color. Mine is almost completely white. Souls also give off energy. The energy fills the body and most bodies overflow from 2 inch to 2 ft from the skin of the body in humans. For how much it radiates outside the body shows the soul's strength. From what I've been told many times over, mine radiates so much that if you were to go into space and look a Earth, you would think mine were the soul of the Earth. Odd... Souls also hold memories of all the lives it has gone through and even its own life. Sadly, souls can be read like books if your a Shaman.

Mystics are spiritual beings with light auras with barriars around their souls. Mystic soul radiant is so large, it can cover large bodies of land or water, some even consuming a planet. Mystics are the oldest race in the universe and can be found anywhere, some even on Earth. Mystics look like people unless the person looking at them has the wavelength parallel to spirits or if they are a shaman. If you see past the normal human look, you can see that they are either an angel, a devil or both. Angels have dove like wings that are usually the color of their soul and some have brown, ape like tails. Angels are from Heaven. Devils have horns and bat wings that reflect the color of their soul. Some devils are red in color. Devils are from Hell. Heaven and Hell are on a world known as Eden and Heaven is not located in the sky and Hell isn't located underground...they are both on land. The one known as God is an angel known as Komedrama.

How do I know this you ask? I was once a Mystic known as Algeta Talon who was killed by one of the Demon Gods by sealing it within himself while trying to find his dead wife's soul who soul was unhosted on Earth until 15 years ago. He's been searching for her soul for millions of years. This battle was over 18 years ago over Earth. The Demon God was planning to devour the entire Earth just for all the souls on it.

You don't have to believe any of this if you don't want to. I'm just being open with you guys.
Master Ridley said:
Most humans aren't able to see souls.
Master Ridley said:
Evolution is correct! The universe was never created but its always been around. And the explosion didn't come from no where. The Big Bang is only the beginning stage of the Rubber Band Theory which states that the birth of the universe starts off with a big band, then all the matter will continue to expand out into space until it is caught by gravity and the universe will come together where the process starts again. There isn't a higher being that is all knowing, all powerful, etc but there is a Mystic with the title of God. He didn't create the humans, he's just incharge of overseeing everything but can't really get involved much.
Master Ridley said:
Demons, souls, mystics, zombies and ghost are real. I'll say this again. I am a Mystic!
Master Ridley said:
Souls aren't located in the head. Their located in the chest where the heart is.
Master Ridley said:
Humans aren't angelic beings. I see them as quite the opposite.
Master Ridley said:
All true living beings have souls, including plants, fungus, and microorganisms except viruses.
Master Ridley said:
Animal souls are much larger then plant souls. Sawgrass doesn't have trillions of souls. Plants have one soul that develops and grows with the plant. The core of the soul can be anywhere, even in a leaf. Cut it away and the plant losses its soul but remains alive.
Also, there is one soul on Earth that consumes the planet...however, its only been on the Earth for 18 years and still counting. Its an individual. Think its God, stranded on Earth, the Mesiah, second coming of Jesus? Well, you think that, your wrong! I'm not going into this any further however...the soul subject I mean. Its off subject.

To TheKeyboardist: Looks like some of your evidence has lucked out. So, drop the moon crap and drop the Darwin's deathbed crap. I'd suggest you get your facts straighten before you post. Oh and if you say the same for the whole crap about my knowhow on souls. As I said before . . .
Master Fox said:
Your talking to a guy that can see souls and demons . . .
. . . at least . . . I used to . . .
I have not much to add as of now.

BTW...Master Ridley is me!

Edit:
Infinity Blade said:
A belief cannot be represented as fact, so we cannot judge without the possibility of error. Any such assertion would be no better than someone else's, so it becomes meaningless. With that being the case, it is useless to make a judgment... as the reason behind the attempt will remain unsatisfied. Given that, we should believe what suits us and let others do the same.

Religion and truth are not the same. Religion is a belief, so the actuality is merely in one's own perception. Something that can not be proven or disproven is not fact.
I have to agree with IB!
 

Master Fox

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
230
Location
The Great Fox
Bowser Rocks!!!

Anywho...To add to my last post, I've noticed people stating that God has given us the power to think or evolution has given humans the power to thing and I have to say that this isn't so. All animals can think. You think just because we have technology doesn't mean that we are the only creatures that think. The reason we have everything we have is because of human instinct. The main human instinct is to want more. This leads to all we have today. First to come were tools, to make life easier. Next was shelter. Next was religion and the creation of Gods, to better understand the world simply. This made most humans to be very arrogent and ignorant into thinking that they are superior to all other beings since there belief is human sided, all excluding those religions that state that humans are equal to nature and all other living beings. Next was money, creating more human greed. After was Science, to better explain the world with logic and experiment to prove the scientific hypothesis, making religion obsolete although some humans won't let it go. Science lessened some oh the humans' ignorance...the once believing that science is BS keep their oversized ignorence. After, thanks to science and human instict, came technology. Technology furthered human arrogence and ignorence. All this we have is due to humans' main instinct, to want more, not because humans can think...all animals can think. You have to remember...humans aren't angelic beings. To me, humans and angelic beings should not be put in the same paragraph unless they pit against each other. Humans want to think that they are but are not. Humans think that they are superior beings but they aren't. Its human instinct, not thought that got us here. I've noticed not a whole lot of humans actually think to be honest. Those humans that don't think for themselves (religious members), follow others they think that do think but are actually greed tainted and some only after the member's money and molesting little boys and others are brainwashed as well from when they werejust members (priests) who use the name of an imaginary superior being (God and/or Jesus) to keep those humans that don't think for themselves, brainwashed, by using methods of fear (Satan and the things the church says are influences of the devil) or ancient, out of date text with imaginary stories, told in many different contradicting, flawed ways (the Bible), all used to manipulate or brainwash the members of that religion who were exposed to the said religion since they were born, of course that some humans were able to escape the manipulation and started thinking logically and intelligently.
 

Fox_Rox

Smash Rookie
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
18
I will say this, if there is a god, he is certainly not perfect. If he were perfect, his creations would be perfect, and that simply rules out the Christian idea of god right there. Now people say "But oh, god gave us free will!!!" Does that make us any less perfect? If god were perfect, he would create perfect lifeforms, we are not, if we were perfect in the beginning, we would not have made a choice that led to imperfection.

I personally don't believe in a god, and I believe in evolution, because at this time the theory makes the MOST sense.

I leave a link, http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html
 

awesomestnerd

Smash Cadet
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
56
Location
Yes
Believe it or not, you were perfect when you were born. You were obviously healthy if you are posting here today, you hadn't sinned, and were making choices and using your free will, though they were small choices. Unfortunately, later in your life you made some bad choices and now you are a sinner, but remember, God MADE you perfect.

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
 

null

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
161
Location
Godfrey, Illinois
Believe it or not, you were perfect when you were born.
What if I was missing an arm or a leg? or mabye all of them?

What if my heart was born on the outside?

What if I was born with a disease?

Did I sin as I was on my why out of my mom and God said "Close Enough"?


Stupidity.

Unfortunately, later in your life you made some bad choices and now you are a sinner, but remember, God MADE you perfect.
And I when lie, I catch a cold.

And when I steal, I get afflicted by some lifetime disease.

and when I say the lords name in vain, I stub my toe?


Stupidity.
 

Crimson King

I am become death
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
28,983
Awesomestnerd said:
Believe it or not, you were perfect when you were born. You were obviously healthy if you are posting here today, you hadn't sinned, and were making choices and using your free will, though they were small choices. Unfortunately, later in your life you made some bad choices and now you are a sinner, but remember, God MADE you perfect.
Funny, I wasn't healthy when I was born. In fact, without modern medicine, I wouldn't have lasted those 11 days in that incubator when I had pneumonia. You could say it's a miracle, but the only miracle is that no one was clouded by letting God decide if I should live or die and took the intiative to save me.

Secondly, the creationist have the same argument basically "It's not possible for lifeforms to go from one form to another," and try to use science to boast how evolution is wrong, but can't explain how they can base and entire religion on a man who died and CAME BACK TO LIFE FOR 40 DAYS. I mean that is much more logical instead of stuff like DNA.
 

Fox_Rox

Smash Rookie
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
18
awesomestnerd said:
Believe it or not, you were perfect when you were born. You were obviously healthy if you are posting here today, you hadn't sinned, and were making choices and using your free will, though they were small choices. Unfortunately, later in your life you made some bad choices and now you are a sinner, but remember, God MADE you perfect.

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
I'VE HAD IT!!!!!!!!! It doesn't matter whether you have free will or not. If you are perfect there is no way you can become imperfect, IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! If you think otherwise you do not grasp the concept of perfection then.
 

snex

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
3,085
Location
Chicago, IL
That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it
not only do scientists know about it, but we see it every day. its called the sun.
 

JFox

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
5,310
Location
Under a dark swarm
I don't believe we can really say whether or not we are perfect or imperfect. This is a very complex idea, one that goes beyond the surface.

We do not really know the purpose of our own existence, so we cannot know if we are perfect. Not in an individual sense, but as a race as a whole. If we have a purpose, and we are unaware of it, it could be possible that in order to properly obtain this goal as a race, we must think of ourselves as imperfect.

Basically, we really have no idea.
 

Semmeh

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
109
Location
The dark corners of your mind.
Ok, the Sun does provide massive amounts of energy to our earth.

I am a Christian, and I agree and disagree with you guys. According to my faith, you were not born perfect. ALL people are born imperfect and sinful. This is not though, speaking about disease and physical deformities and what not. It speaks about what you think, what you feel, how you respond to different things.

Now I believe God created the universe and so on.

You ask, "But what created God? It's impossible for Him to create Himself."

Scientifically, yes, this is impossible, but, we're trying to hold down God with Science, with what we know. God cannot be held down by that. Know that God exists in another reality/dimension.
We have no idea what exists in that reality. We're only speculating on what we know so far.
What we know is very little compared to what else is out there. The Human body is complex yes? As is the universe and its functions. If the evolutionary theory was true, this all happened by chance. If our earth was any closer to the sun, it would burn up, if it was any farther, it would freeze. How is it that our planet's position is so perfect?

I ask you, "Where did this ball of matter that was the source of the universe originate from?"

Now onto evolution. I believe in evolution yes. Micro-evolution, which is the change or improvement, unimprovement within a species. Take all our types of dogs for example; I have no doubt that that is an example of evolution. I do have a problem with macro-evolution, which is the change from species to species. A horse evolving into a fish for example. Show me a skeleton or a fossil showing a horse with fins. There is no fossil evidence for the type of evolution that needed to happen in order to have our many different animals and plants and such.

You say, "What about all the apes and such?"


We may look like we originated with apes but our DNA structures are pretty much different with only small similarities. We have yet to discover an ape-man type being very similar to humans.
 

JFox

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
5,310
Location
Under a dark swarm
I would like to clear some confusion up. This is not directed at one side or the other, it is for everyone...

Anyone who believes we evolved from apes needs to get their facts straight. No where in evolution does it say that we evolved from apes, this is the number 1 misconception about the theory of evolution.

Evolution states that the first man was the Homo-Erectus. We evolved from Homo-Erectus, and are now Homo-Sapien.

It is also believed that the Apes and Homo-Erectus(first form of human) evolved FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. So whatever the species was that we evolved from, the apes also came from that species. We and the apes mutated differently from our ancestor, and are now different species. But we share many similar qualities because our ancestor was the same.

It just seemed that people needed a refresher course, I'm sure its been a little while since some of us has taken biology.
 

snex

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
3,085
Location
Chicago, IL
Semmeh said:
Ok, the Sun does provide massive amounts of energy to our earth.

I am a Christian, and I agree and disagree with you guys. According to my faith, you were not born perfect. ALL people are born imperfect and sinful. This is not though, speaking about disease and physical deformities and what not. It speaks about what you think, what you feel, how you respond to different things.

Now I believe God created the universe and so on.

You ask, "But what created God? It's impossible for Him to create Himself."

Scientifically, yes, this is impossible, but, we're trying to hold down God with Science, with what we know. God cannot be held down by that. Know that God exists in another reality/dimension.
We have no idea what exists in that reality. We're only speculating on what we know so far.
What we know is very little compared to what else is out there. The Human body is complex yes? As is the universe and its functions. If the evolutionary theory was true, this all happened by chance. If our earth was any closer to the sun, it would burn up, if it was any farther, it would freeze. How is it that our planet's position is so perfect?

I ask you, "Where did this ball of matter that was the source of the universe originate from?"

Now onto evolution. I believe in evolution yes. Micro-evolution, which is the change or improvement, unimprovement within a species. Take all our types of dogs for example; I have no doubt that that is an example of evolution. I do have a problem with macro-evolution, which is the change from species to species. A horse evolving into a fish for example. Show me a skeleton or a fossil showing a horse with fins. There is no fossil evidence for the type of evolution that needed to happen in order to have our many different animals and plants and such.

You say, "What about all the apes and such?"


We may look like we originated with apes but our DNA structures are pretty much different with only small similarities. We have yet to discover an ape-man type being very similar to humans.
people do not respect creationists when they use strawman arguments.

edit: jfox, that common ancestor would have been an ape, far more similar to chimpanzees (morphologically) than to humans.

edit again: congrats to awesomestnerd for winning an award on "Fundies Say the Darndest Things!" http://www.fstdt.com/bottom.asp?view=normal#8255
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom