-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Challenge To All Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Shad
Veteran Member
Just knocking down your false dilemma
Irreverent as the key parameter is that I provide evidence for me view while you seem to be making it up as you go. That is key criteria I put forward on why someone should or should not be taken seriously. You have merely parroted my response back without justification thus your point is arbitrary.
No. You asked for evidence of subduction, I provided one. You asked for evidence of continental shift, I provided a source.
Your opinion is noted and rejected.
Let re rephrase--You provided what you considered evidence.
I have no ask or evidence of continental shift. I accept that a true.
Shad
Veteran Member
You lack of education in logic is noted. You asked for the evidence used to develop a model. I provided it. It is not my opinion. You would know this if you had an education in the topics you discuss. Sadly you do not.
No I provided evidence which is the basis of the model. A model which is taught at every major school on the planet that has a geology department.
You asked for the evidence for the modern model for Pangaea which includes continental drift (I said shift which is a mistake on my part)
You have a model of continental shift that is not the modern model so you do reject it. Again you are being sloppy in your language by equivocating between the model I am talking about, the one that is accepted with science with your model which has been refuted since the 60s. Worse off I have already told this yet you are oblivious....
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Learn some reading comprehension. I was clarifying that what I provided was not my opinion but the evidence used to create the model. My opinion, as a nonexpert, would be that the modern model works better than your model. Get it?
Go back and read the previous posts then....
Since you are making assertions as the basis of what you believe with no evidence while I have at least a evidence behind the model I am talking about (modern model)
Those that do not know logic wont understand it.
Hilarious. You do not even know the expanding earth model was actually an idea developed by geologists. Another demonstration that you have no idea what you are talking about. That is your model, look it up. Read your own comments as you laid out a model....
Tautology. Show what you think is a creation is in fact one
Look up tautology.....
I am tired of you beating around the . If you want to discuss something specific, be specific. Otherwise, have a nice day.
Shad
Veteran Member
Hilarious. You make assertion after assertion but it's me beating around the bush.... Beside I have been specific as we are talking about the modern model of plate tectonics vs your model.
gnostic
The Lost One
Of course you have a model.
A model that's based on typical Christian creationism that largely and literally interprets its main source - the bible.
And when your bible doesn't contain information that science does have, as a typical creationist like yourself, you would fill in the blanks with some apologetic pseudoscience and fallacious claims. These claims that typical creationists often make, have no scientific basis, with no scientific evidences.
And I have been reading the exchanges between you and Shad, in have these claims that you have made, and Shad would counter your claims with either sources or evidences, which you would either responds by back-pedalling or moving the goalpost, or by making some more unverifiable and unscientific claims.
What I find ironic is that you accuse Shad about "beating around the bush", but it is actually "you" who have been beating around the bush.
I have not denied plate tectonics, but they have nothing to do with evolution vs creation. Plate tectonics have been proven, nothing in the TOE has been.
allfoak
Alchemist
It is because everything we say applies to ourselves, without exception.
What we say to one another reveals to others who we are if we have the eyes and ears to see and hear.
Shad
Veteran Member
Yes you have as plate tectonics was a competing hypothesis to your expanding earth hypothesis. The former was accept and the later rejected. Since you believe plate tectonics includes an expanding earth model you are only mimicking the name of the model, nothing more.
The expanding earth model is now used by literalist like yourself as per your example of Noah followed by the very expanding earth model to support your point. You seem to think that I am oblivious to the common arguments used by creationists like yourself. You are repeating an claim you were taught and learn, you never deployed this idea yourself. So it applies to the form of Biblical creation you follow.
News flash..... I was taught the same thing for years.....
Wrong against as there is evidence in the form speciation from multiple observations and experiments. There are genetic and fossil links between species and genus. While you have no example of an animal spontaneously popping into existence as is. After all that is the basic for the claim. Things pop into existence fully formed. Horses *puffed* into existence by God magic, nothing more.
News flash.....Plate tectonics do not indicate the flood did not happen.
in speciation the species don't become a new species. There are no fossil links between species and genus. In fact a genus includes more than one species. What was horse before it was a horse and what did it become after it was not a horse and what was the scientific mechanism that allowed that to happen?
Shad
Veteran Member
Irrelevant as my point was not on the flood but the model you used to support your flood claim. It is that model which is rejected by plate tectonics including the mechanism behind it. So you still reject plate tectonics
That is the definition of the term. Get a dictionary..... better yet get a biology book. You have less knowledge regarding speciation than a grade 10 student in Canada. Impressive.
Yes there is, bears are primary example.....
Duh I know what genus means. I was pointing out the relationship between species within a genus.... genius.....
Look up the theory of evolution or take a biology class to get your answers. Here is a hint, natural selection, mutations ..... I know education yourself must be hard but there are whole departments in institutions called schools and universities that provide an education on these subjects.. Have you heard of schools? There are things called books. Perhaps you can buy a book about evolution and read it rather than use it for a coffee coaster...
If you express that you are too lazy and motivated to be an adult and education yourself do not expect me to treat you like a functional adult.
If all you can do is insult me, go back the third grade playground. I don't have to put up with you snotty remarks. Evidently you do not have the intellect to defend your position so you have to resort to insulting remarks.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Wrong.
Shad
Veteran Member
I made a remark regarding how lazy you are considering there are already multiple posts in this very thread explaining evolution far better than I ever could, containing links for sources you can read and institutions you can query. The information is literially at your figure tips but you have no motivation to educate yourself at all. You have ignored all these sources instead you want me personal to teach you a subject taught in grade school.... I am not your teacher so do not demand that I have to teach you anything.
You confuse an evaluation of your lack of motivation, among other things, as a insult. Rather this is a conclusion that is insulting....
No you don't yet you keep replying despite this. You keep showing how unmotivated you are, uneducated, and uninformed. I point this yet you do not nothing to change this but whine about it.
I provided two mechanics which you can reference yourself. You didn't bother at all. You probably ignored both. You reluctance to read anything is not my problem nor should I explain biology when you can read a number of books yourself.
You should have learned how to do basic research in grade school. Since you are incapable of basic research and must be spoon fed like a child you can read this
Biology For Dummies, Book by Rene Fester Kratz (Paperback) | chapters.indigo.ca
Amazon.com: Evolution (9780879696849): Nicholas H. Barton, Derek E. G. Briggs, Jonathan A. Eisen, David B. Goldstein, Nipam H. Patel: Books
If you display the capabilities of an educated adult you will be treated like one. If you display a child thinking you will be treated as one.
If you do not like my comments put me on ignore.
Last edited:
Then instead of unproven, can't be proven metaphysics post the evidence.