Prove to me creationism is real

[All Else Failed]

lol I can't be wrong OR right .. I'll NEVER know exactly how things happen (no one can/will) and anyne who thinks they do know exactly what happened .. is making up facts to support their own claims .. and I think I've stated this many times before right now.

I can admit all I or anyoone can do is assume and beliefe the religion they choose to support (science is a religion .. it has a following and believers and fanatics just like any "god" based faith does) .. YOU on the other hand .. refuse to admit that fact, yet cling to your man made theories/findings/facts as the gospel truth .. then try to turn it around and put heat on whoever starts puttingheat on you ..

let's hear you say it then ..

:24::24::24:

With your logic, my grandmother's knitting circle is a religion too! You don't understand what science is.

 

[All Else Failed]

Unless of course it disagrees with what you said then it becomes "junk science" :smiley24:

not really, there is established fact, and then there is crap put out by fundamentalists to try to make their argument look credible when its not.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

of course it doesn't, but considering there are peer reviewed, independently verified citations and sources all over the article, and seeing as how all credible scientific data matches up with the data in the article, the information I linked to you is good.

I simply use wiki because its a simple way of sending info to people.

Sooooooo.......you are acknowledging that what you provided was not fact or proof.......right?

===:ninja
opcorn2:

 

[SRC]

lol or maybe it's you that doesn't understand what a religion is:

re·li·gion

/

–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

seems like these are all of the things science does

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

You can go to any other credible, scientific article published by an established researcher and see that they all add up.

That's total crap, most of what is being debated is a refutable as the Global Warming argument, you know as well as I do there are arguments on either side.

Fact, research is a product of someones quest to prove or disprove a pet theory, a pet theory derived from an innate desire to prove or dis-prove something else.

Most of what is being done on both sides of this debate is junk science as far as I'm concerned.

You for instance will only consider evidence that supports your belief system, and that is the way it usually happens.

Just because someone gets published doesn't make them right, or credible.

Just so you realize that. I have read articles and books by a lot of well respected scientists that were totally full of crap.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

not really, there is established fact, and then there is crap put out by fundamentalists to try to make their argument look credible when its not.

And that goes both ways, the liberal propaganda machine is just as powerful at brainwashing as is the right.

 

[All Else Failed]

Sooooooo.......you are acknowledging that what you provided was not fact or proof.......right?

===:ninja
opcorn2:

No, I said just because I post a link, doesn't make it right ALONE. What makes it right is the fact that you can match it up with any other serious scientific article or establishment and see that they are both saying the same thing. I ONLY posted the wiki article because it is easily accessible.

 

[All Else Failed]

And that goes both ways, the liberal propaganda machine is just as powerful at brainwashing as is the right.

you listen to too much conservative talk radio.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

you listen to too much conservative talk radio.

I listen to neither.

I think they are all batshit crazy

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

4.54×109 years

What does that mean?

4.54 years x 109 years = Ballpark amount?

Just want to be sure.

 

[All Else Failed]

lol or maybe it's you that doesn't understand what a religion is:

re·li·gion

/

–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

seems like these are all of the things science does

sci·ence –noun 1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3.any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4.systematized knowledge in general. 5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6.a particular branch of knowledge. 7.skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.








Science deals with observable data, its a tool. religion does not and cannot do this. Again, by your logic the boy scouts are a religion.

 

[All Else Failed]

What does that mean?

4.54 years x 109 years = Ballpark amount?

Just want to be sure.

..yes its pretty obvious

 

[SRC]

knowledge formed by man's hand to support his own perception of the way things are or could be .. hmm interesting .. sounds alot like this religion you often speak of

 

[All Else Failed]

knowledge formed by man's hand to support his own perception of the way things are or could be .. hmm interesting .. sounds alot like this religion you often speak of

um, no.

Man doesn't create data, he simply records it.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Alrighty Mr. Timmah. Thanks for getting me off the bench.

Absolutely... You will find layers in all rock/mountains, but you will almost NEVER find these layers level or flat. The reason for this is that the land heaves and swells creating bulges and ruptures. You may be familiar with "plastic deformations" that's where the rock under pressure with enough time will deform and fold without fracturing.
This is evidence that mountains are moving and changing very slowly over time. The Himalayan Mountains (Mt. Everest) are still growing higher, at a rate of about 2.4 in per year.

Undeniable.

I would also like to point out that if there was a global flood, then there would be a sediment layer found at the same depth across the globe. There should be evidence of marine fossils everywhere this layer is identified, not on only a few select mountains. But this layer has never been found or identified.
Geologists have found other sediment layers that cover the globe. One which happened 65 million years ago when a meteor wiped out over 70% of all species it was called the Cretaceous-Tertiary Mass Extinction event. This layer can be found everywhere on the planet. It is very consistent in depth and consists of the same material....

Not entirely true. If you ever move a fish aquarium with a few inches of water in it you'll see what I'm about to say in action. I've moved every 1-2 years since '98, so I've seen it a lot. :yuk

When you start walking and the water / sand / shells / decorations start getting swished (real word?) around, there is no even distribution of the contents. There will be patches of sand, places where the different decorations are buried at different depths, clean glass floor, etc... I can't think of anything on the planetary scale that would stop this from happening, but I can think of several reason why the phenomenon would be exaggerated. Large, fixed formations on the surface (sub-surface in case of a flood) would channel, block, and re-direct the finite loose materials. We do have evidence of layers of sedimentation that do not traverse the entire globe. To me, these two ideas work together just fine.

A flood does not fit with the presence of marine fossils on the side of mountains for the following reasons:

1. Floods will erode mountains and the soil on them and deposit their sediments in the valleys.

2. The marine fossils are in the same positions as they lived, not scattered all over as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was observed in the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci.

3. Fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

4. Shells do not float. So a flood would not wash them up onto a mountain regardless if an additional body of water covered the oceans.

There are several interesting points here. Bullet #1 I would tend to agree with, but only when we're talking about rapidly moving, downhill flooding. The slow retreat of water at an even pace, over an entire area would absolutely leave materials where they rested. Evaporation and absorption are slow.

#2. Not necessary telling. The world is a large place, and even though a biblical 40 day flood would be considered "flash" in geographic terms, it isn't so in living being terms. Colonies of sea life wouldn't have time to physically make it from one side of the globe to the other simply because they now had access. This is evidenced by the mere fact that sea life today is not evenly distributed around the worlds oceans. Creatures would still congregate and stick to the areas they felt most comfortable.

#3 & #4. I'm not sure I fully understand. So you're saying there are sea-shells at altitude, or are not? The additional body of water covering the ocean part is throwing me. Please clarify.

Something else to point out... The tallest mountain on earth is Mt. Everest at 29,029 ft above sea level. It is growing at a rate of 2.4 inches a year... so if you do a little math, at given rate of growth, the peak could have been below sea level less than 150,000 years ago... That's nothing in geologic terms. Now I'm sure that it wasn't under the sea 150,000 years ago. There are too many variables and I can venture a educated guess that it's rate of growth is not consistent or predictable.

Undeniable, but not really helpful for either side. ... Oh you know what, check that. I think I see what you're saying. Is it that oceans are basically migrating very slowly as tectonic pressures move land mass shapes? Theoretically all of the earth could have at one point of anther been submerged? (This will actually fit with my Bible quote in a minute)

You don't have to stop... I just really want to hear from your side... it seems like I can make good points to never having them addressed.

I would rather hear your look on it... it ain't no fun debating alone.

Sorry again about this. I know you like to keep a tidy house. There have been some unusual stresses over here lately, and for whatever reason I just got stubborn.

Something that I think is important:

Each side of this argument is looking at the same evidence. Different conclusions are drawn, but the raw data is the same. You'll never hear me say that it is impossible for your theory to be true, because the evidence in many cases does in fact support you. Inversely, we have evidence that could be explained by the biblical global flood. Both theories have pieces that cannot be explained by one, but do seem to fit the other. It is common to hear both sides say things like "Well, that could be true in this location, but what about over here..." The whole world is full of these 'exceptions.' Fossils that live in different layers for example. I've seen clever explinations that sound okay, but the reality is that these fossils would have long decayed before the hundreds of thousands of years between layers. An 100' tall tree cannot simply root through the layers until the whole thing is burried. To me that's unreasonable.

Part of the problem humanists, or atheists, or whatever you want to call non-creationists have is the basic assumption that Christians believe the Earth was a flat, featureless place before the flood, and the flood explains all of our geographic diversity. I personally don't have any reason to think the creator made a flat, boring, single layered world. I know this drives some people crazy because it's "Too easy," but they don't understand that they're dealing with a people who believe in Intelligent Design. Our theory just so happens to fit simple explinations, but that doen't take away from observable science. "Why can we see stars millions of light years away if the world is so young?" To the Christian, God didn't create things static and then fire the starting pistol. He made it the way we see it.

Like I said earlier (possibly in another thread), I've never looked too deeply into the young earth idea. I'm not opposed per say, but I don't claim to be an expert either.

Genesis 1:1-2 reads - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

To me, this says the Earth could be almost any age imaginable. There is no mention of how long God hovered over the oceanic Earth. Could have been 30 seconds or 300 billion years. Who knows? You'll hear me discuss this with Christians all the time, but as with all things... people have their point of view, and it'll never change.

Have you ever seen scientists argue about different theories concerning the same data? LOL They'll go forever. The first person who needs to go to the bathroom loses!! :jk

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

lol or maybe it's you that doesn't understand what a religion is:

re·li·gion

/

–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

seems like these are all of the things science does

------------>OUCCCHH

No you didn't. :24:

 

[SRC]

um, no.

Man doesn't create data, he simply records it.

:24: .. he had to create the data to record it .. otherwise .. they wouldn't know it exsists .. at the beginning of it all .. someone had to say "well this is what I think" and the ball started to roll and everyone started adding their .02 cents in on top of it .. and agreeing with each other ..

You are simplying BELIEVING that they are/were right.

You are full of crap if you believe that man won't/doesn't/hasn't created "facts" or "data" to support his own beliefs.

 

[All Else Failed]

------------>OUCCCHH

No you didn't. :24:

she did, and she also accomplished faulty logic.

 

[All Else Failed]

:24: .. he had to create the data to record it .. otherwise .. they wouldn't know it exsists .. at the beginning of it all .. someone had to say "well this is what I think" and the ball started to roll and everyone started adding their .02 cents in on top of it .. and agreeing with each other ..

You are simplying BELIEVING that they are/were right.

.....you're suggesting man made nature? Thats what we get our data from....nature is our data....

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

.....you're suggesting man made nature? Thats what we get our data from....nature is our data....

Oh my God.....I actually have to agree with homo on this one.

Man....Observes what is taking place before him then speculates as to what makes this happen, forms an opinion, then sets out to prove/dis-prove, all the while documenting hopefully.