Justify creationism over evolutionism

[Autodidact]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1<snip irrelevant and unsupported preaching>

Now, are you familiar at all with the whole concept of science?

 

[Autodidact]

blu:

Science is not a subject; its a method. One important part of that method is a commitment, a promise to accept the results of that method regardless of your prior pre-conception or belief. That means if it turns out that the evidence doesn't support a global flood, you relinquish your prior belief in that flood. That's what the world's geologists did in the 18th (that's right, the 18th) century, and why Geology has progressed to a greater understanding of our planet. You're still stuck back in the 1700s, trying to deny the possibility of scientific knowledge.

Now, as I've asked you at least three times, (it seems to be a universal that all creationists are rude) DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS?

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is totally absurd that you think just because I believe in the sciences that I would also believe in the false information that many use to find funding to further the support of their free loading, do you?

All the above is hearsay, And is absolutely unproven, I studied a year of that in collage, and could never agree on the way they have tried to prove their theory. It was all based on their own hodgpodge [guess work by reasoning] and not real scientific proof.

 

[bluZero]

blu:

Science is not a subject; its a method. One important part of that method is a commitment, a promise to accept the results of that method regardless of your prior pre-conception or belief. That means if it turns out that the evidence doesn't support a global flood, you relinquish your prior belief in that flood. That's what the world's geologists did in the 18th (that's right, the 18th) century,
In the 18th century I'd say that they were premature in rejection the flood.

and why Geology has progressed to a greater understanding of our planet. You're still stuck back in the 1700s, trying to deny the possibility of scientific knowledge. Again science is not evolution or what was it the pre-socratics called it, oh yea, cosmology. It may have entailed a lot of thought, but science is not conducing to a lie. You have to learn to keep the lies out of science and then we can discuss it.

Now, as I've asked you at least three times, (it seems to be a universal that all creationists are rude) DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS?

We are not rude my friend, we just do not allow ppl to shove an obvious lie down out throat.

 

[painted wolf]

do you realize for Noah's ark to be true... that it would require hyper-evolution of species from "kinds"?

So fast that it would require a new rodent species to appear every year! Now that is wacky evolution.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

do you realize for Noah's ark to be true... that it would require hyper-evolution of species from "kinds"?

So fast that it would require a new rodent species to appear every year! Now that is wacky evolution.

^ She's not kidding.
YouTube - The Creation Museum Teaches Super Evolution

 

[themadhair]

You have to learn to keep the lies out of science and then we can discuss it.

Translation:

Please hide all that physical evidence that contradicts the bible so I can wallow in my own self ignorance.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

See no evil, hear no evil, speak utter BS.

GhK.

 

[themadhair]

Here are all the posts where I discussed some of what geologists, palaeontologists and dendrochronologists have found:

Blu – explain to me why we find the fossil remains of different creatures in distinct layers.

For example, in Cambrian and pre-Cambrian rocks we find smaller creatures, none of which are alive today.
For example, we find trilobites relegated to rock layers no earlier than the Permian layers.
For example, we find Dinosaurs in the Cretaceous to Jurassic layers but not anywhere outside.
For example, we only find human fossils in rocks of very young geological age.

For example, we have a host of primate fossils that appear to be perfect intermediaries between something ape-like and modern humans. These intermediates can be examined in great detail too with joints such as the knee, hip and ankle showing the development of bipedalism.

You can google all of the above discoveries. You can go and visit museums and university geology/palaeontology departments to see these fossils and rock layers.

When you blatantly ignore/disregard the above wealth of evidence in favour of your theology you are spitting all over science and the scientific method that made these discoveries.

For example I went of a little trip up to Belfast University to see something called the Belfast curve. Marvellous thing, but before I describe it I need to explain a few things.

We all know that trees grow a new ring every year. What you may not know is that the thickness and density of that tree ring is determined by the climate in which that tree ring grew. So not only are tree rings a record of the tree’s age, they are also a record of the climate in which that tree lived.

Trees that live at the same time experience the same climate, and thus have the same pattern in their tree rings for the portion where the lives of those two trees coincided. We can use this to match up the age of long dead trees to count the tree rings backwards in time. This is called the dendrochronological record.

The Belfast curve is a series of oak tree samples that have been preserved in the Irish bogs containing tree rings that can be counted back over 9,000 years. The Belfast curve is, I believe, considered within the dendrochronological community to be the best dendrochronological record in the world (and also considered to be most accurate C14 calibrator).

When Vesuvius went up and buried Pompeii in 79 AD it belched ash into the atmosphere that was recorded in this fantastic climatological record that is the Belfast curve. So, given that the Belfast curve goes back 9,000 years and given that it recorded the eruption of Vesuvius, wouldn’t the fact that it has no evidence whatsoever of a global flood sometime around 4,990 BC sort of disprove your claim that such a flood happened?

Take the Belfast curve for example – why didn’t the trees dating to 4,990 BC not notice they were underwater for a year?

Take the field of geology for example – why do the rocks not show any evidence whatsoever for a global flood and subsequent receding waters?

Take the fossil record for example – why do we have distinct fossil layers?

You really haven’t thought this through and are avoiding facing the reality of what we actually find when we dig into the ground. And in ignoring physical evidence you are spitting on science.

So far blu you have totally and utterly ignored all of the above. Do you realise how daft it is for you to be making factual claims regarding the world when you deliberately and systematically intend to ignore whole sections of it????

It must be some existence you lead blu. Having to live a life where you must divert your eyes away from physical evidence for fear of it showing your theology false. How much confidence you must truly have if you are forced to pretend that the information posted above simply doesn’t exist??

Ignoring physical evidence doesn’t make it go away – but it does make you look incredibly foolish.

 

[bluZero]

As tumbleweed says, Evolution is a lie, and I agree. Stay with science as designed by God, all of which has merely been uncovered, and screw Satan's view of it.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

As tumbleweed says, Evolution is a lie, and I agree. Stay with science as designed by God, all of which has merely been uncovered, and screw Satan's view of it.

Would you be happy to go to a hospital in Mexico right now without a mask? Just as well some people don't think evolution is a lie, otherwise we'd all be screwed.

GhK.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Would you be happy to go to a hospital in Mexico right now without a mask? Just as well some people don't think evolution is a lie, otherwise we'd all be screwed.

People who have the mindset of willful ignorance, which is compatible with disbelieving objective reality, are screwed by it in a myriad of ways throughout life.

 

[painted wolf]

As tumbleweed says, Evolution is a lie, and I agree. Stay with science as designed by God, all of which has merely been uncovered, and screw Satan's view of it.

to paraphrase...

I do not think tumbleweed is saying what you think tumbleweed is saying.

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

to paraphrase...

I do not think tumbleweed is saying what you think tumbleweed is saying.

wa:do

"Inconceivable!"

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

 

[Autodidact]

We are not rude my friend, we just do not allow ppl to shove an obvious lie down out throat.

Me neither. That's why I keep calling you on yours. And here's another one. Because where I come from, ignoring people's polite and reasonable questions, in response to your posts, is rude. Then again, I'm not Christian, so that might explain it. Now would ou answer the question I've asked you at least four times, and asked you to answer at least three? Do you or do you know what the ToE says?

 

[bluZero]

Me neither. That's why I keep calling you on yours. And here's another one. Because where I come from, ignoring people's polite and reasonable questions, in response to your posts, is rude. Then again, I'm not Christian, so that might explain it. Now would ou answer the question I've asked you at least four times, and asked you to answer at least three? Do you or do you know what the ToE says?

At first I THOUGHT THAT IT MEANT TAKE OVER ECONOMICALLY But then I read this:The theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. Initially, the term was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy &#8212; a character from a cycle of Stanis&#322;aw Lem's science fiction stories of 1960s &#8212; was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Physicist John Ellis claims[1] to have introduced the term into the technical literature in an article in Nature in 1986.[2] Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions of nature.[3]
There have been many theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but none have been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine.
Based on theoretical holographic principle arguments from the 1990s, many physicists believe that 11-dimensional M-theory, which is described in many sectors by matrix string theory, in many other sectors by perturbative string theory is the complete theory of everything, although there is no widespread consensus. So, it is all theory, and The God of heaven is
all real.

 

[painted wolf]

yeah... Auto uses ToE to refer to the Theory of Evolution.

wa:do

 

[Sonic247]

So painted wolf, I think most of the Native American religions had a creation story. I mean what exactly do you mean when you put Native American as your religion?

 

[painted wolf]

It means I try to follow the ways of my first nations ancestors as much as I am able.

but it also means that I realize that our 'myths' are teaching tools rather than hard history. That's why oral historians and storytellers are separate 'professions'.

wa:do

 

[Sonic247]

What were the ways of your first nations? As for their beliefs I would assume they took them literally but your the expert.