Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[Brian Schuh]

Sad that you cannot get over yourself long enough to have an honest meaningful discussion.

Are you honestly content being a playtoy for those who are bored?
I mean, it is so easy to lead you around by the nose with your eagerness to be a victim....

Alright, produce some evidence, so we can have something meaningful to discuss.

 

[Quintessence]

How many times do I have to say I believe evolution, before you realize I believe evolution! But evolution doesn't negate the historical fact God created the Earth 5776 years ago.

What evolution are you believing in? As far as I'm aware, proper biological evolution, as in the scientific theory, is entirely incompatible with the notion of a young earth. Which is likely why people are insisting that you do not believe in evolution, as by evolution they mean proper biological evolution.

 

[Brian Schuh]

It belongs in a mythology classroom at best.

I took a class in high school called "The Bible as Literature."

 

[McBell]

Alright, produce some evidence, so we can have something meaningful to discuss.

What claims of mine do you wish evidence for that is not already been shown true by your own posts?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How many times do I have to say I believe evolution, before you realize I believe evolution! But evolution doesn't negate the historical fact God created the Earth 5776 years ago. Obviously, that isn't enough time for evolution to get much credit at all, and that is why believing in evolution as a process doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Stop insinuating that I don't believe in evolution. I'm saying it isn't relevant, considering there is only 5776 years of history.

You were wondering why creationism/religious belief is not taught in science classrooms. That was my response.

If you claim the earth is only 5776 years old and that the god you worship created it, then you need to present the evidence that backs up those assertions. It's not anyone else's job to prove you wrong. Especially when all evidence to date supports a much older age for the earth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, so either y'all got tired of saying, "ignorant, stupid, deluded" or you saw it wasn't working and it isn't true, so now you say "victim" and drama queen. If you spent half the effort you use in calling creationists names, instead using that effort in just show me the evidence. Personal attacks on me doesn't help your case, for there are Creation historians out there who can argue my case much better than I.

Show you the evidence for what?

 

[Brian Schuh]

What evolution are you believing in? As far as I'm aware, proper biological evolution, as in the scientific theory, is entirely incompatible with the notion of a young earth. Which is likely why people are insisting that you do not believe in evolution, as by evolution they mean proper biological evolution.

The process, natural selection and speciation and mutations can improve a life form, all that. I don't believe anyone can take a verified process like evolution and rewind it like in a VCR to figure out anything in the past. The actual evolutionary process has mostly been observed.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Show you the evidence for what?

The evidence that we don't have a young earth.

 

[McBell]

The evidence that we don't have a young earth.

Why, so you can ignore it again?

I for one am not the least bit interested in Kent Hovind requests.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Why, so you can ignore it again?

I for one am not the least bit interested in Kent Hovind requests.

Someone already presented stalactites as a means of dating. I did not ignore it and even said was worth studying. And that is the only evidence I heard yet. No one yet could defend carbon dating.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The evidence that we don't have a young earth.

Shouldn't you be the one providing the evidence that it is actually a young earth?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Shouldn't you be the one providing the evidence that it is actually a young earth?

The only evidence I presented yet is the Hebrew Year Count. I implied that one small lineage has been counting the years from the very beginning. Feel free to attack the Hebrew year count, it isn't hard to do, but instead some think they prove their point by attacking me, instead of attacking my evidence and arguments.s

 

[viole]

The evidence that we don't have a young earth.

Would you also accept evidence of an old cosmos, or do you want only evidence for an old earth?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only evidence I presented yet is the Hebrew Year Count. I implied that one small lineage has been counting the years from the very beginning. Feel free to attack the Hebrew year count, it isn't hard to do, but instead some think they prove their point by attacking me, instead of attacking my evidence and arguments.s

That's a start, I guess. I'm just pointing out that it's not up to other people to prove your claim wrong. It's up to you to prove it right. I mean, there's a reason that the mainstream scientific view is that of an old earth - because that's what the evidence indicates.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Would you also accept evidence of an old cosmos, or do you want only evidence for an old earth?

Ciao

- viole

The Hebrew year count just goes back to the creation of Adam and Eve. Everything prior was told by God and can't be understood. The Earth and the cosmos existed longer ago than 5776 years. So what evidence of humankind existing longer than 5776 years?

 

[McBell]

No one yet could defend carbon dating.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

 

[metis]

The Hebrew year count just goes back to the creation of Adam and Eve. Everything prior was told by God and can't be understood. The Earth and the cosmos existed longer ago than 5776 years. So what evidence of humankind existing longer than 5776 years?

Both the human fossil record plus genome testing accompanied by known dating techniques that often can be used to cross-check one another. In science do not use the Bible or any other religious source to verify nor deny much of anything as these are highly subjective sources positing beliefs that are largely unfalsifiable.

BTW, if you carefully read through the genealogies, you'll find that they really don't match up as some names don't appear on one list but do on another, plus there's at least one juxtaposition error.

 

[Valjean]

Explain dendrochronological dating older than 5776 years, Brian.
Explain historical, stratigraphic and carbon verification of the ring-dates.

 

[viole]

The Hebrew year count just goes back to the creation of Adam and Eve. Everything prior was told by God and can't be understood. The Earth and the cosmos existed longer ago than 5776 years. So what evidence of humankind existing longer than 5776 years?

So, you are arguing about the age of the human race, not the age of the earth. Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian Schuh]

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

My refusal to accept carbon dating isn't because I don't understand it. I accept many things I don't understand. And I admit I don't completely understand it. But when speaking of radioactive half lives and decay, one has to have a rough idea how radioactive it was to begin with.

Not one person here has yet shown carbon dating to be legit. If one person can tell me how the hell one can know how radioactive something was that long ago, then carbon dating could be considered evidence.