Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Then what do you make of all the people after Darwin WITH scientific degrees in various fields of science who understand and support the TOE.....?????
-
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!
What is the biggest scam in world history?
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
Then what do you make of all the people after Darwin WITH scientific degrees in various fields of science who understand and support the TOE.....?????
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well, I was trying to Google it for you, but for some reason, of 450,000 known species, the only one creation "scientists" are interested in is the Bombardier beetle. Haven't found anything at all about the rest of the Order Coleoptera. It's almost as though they weren't really scientists at all. I think I could find you thousands of non-YEC scientific articles about beetle evolution in seconds, but nothing at all from those YECs. No wonder you're having trouble with a simple example of your hypothesis.
Okay, but just saying "water caused the continental separation" is leaving out huge chunks of the explanation. Remember the business plan of the Underpants Gnomes from that episode of South Park (Phase 1: Collect underpants; Phase 2: ?; Phase 3: Profit!)? It's kinda like that:
Phase 1: Add lots of water
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Continental drift!
I've never heard a good answer for what might go in Phase 2.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Just trying to answer your question, mate. I don't put any stock in the 'flood caused continental separation' story myself. The whole deluge story is a farce IMO.
Love the South Park reference by the way
Last edited:
Anti-thesisofreason
Explorer
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Sorry - didn't mean to jump on you. I just wanted to make it clear to anyone thinking about doing it that just saying "water!" isn't an answer to the question.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K., let's call beetles a FAIL. YEC has nothing to tell us about how we got 40% of the insects on earth. Good to know. Let's try some mammals, because apparently YEC so-called "science" is only concerned with them, despite them being one of the smaller classes of creatures. (And don't even ask about plants.) Let's talk rodents. Rodents are an order of mammals. There are over 2000 known species of them, organized into around 35 families. One such family is the Muridae, which includes mice and rats. Of the genus Rattus (rats) there are around 56 known species. There are other genera that could be included as rats, such as Lenothrix, Anonymomys, Sundamys, Kadarsanomys, Diplothrix, Margaretamys, Lenomys, Komodomys, Palawanomys, Bunomys, Nesoromys, Stenomys, Taeromys, Paruromys, Abditomys, Tryphomys, Limnomys, Tarsomys, Bullimus, Apomys, Millardia, Srilankamys, Niviventer, Maxomys, Leopoldamys, Berylmys, Mastomys, Myomys, Praomys, Hylomyscus, Heimyscus, Stochomys, Dephomys, and Aethomys, and each of these have several species. There are many other creatures called rats, not in this genus, such as Kangaroo rats and bandicoot rats.
So, again, about how many rats did Noah take on board, 2, 112, or some much larger number?
How did we get the many different species of rat we see today?
btw, rats are prohibited as food, so it was important for the ancient Jews to know which is which.
How do you do that, in your system?
So, again, about how many rats did Noah take on board, 2, 112, or some much larger number?
How did we get the many different species of rat we see today?
btw, rats are prohibited as food, so it was important for the ancient Jews to know which is which.
How do you do that, in your system?
MSizer
MSizer
At every single crack in the earth's crust, we get molten rock coming out. Where do you think this water came from? Not to mention of course the fact already mentioned by 9/10 Peng, which is that it still wouldn't account for the moving of the continents.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
JustWondering2
Just the facts Ma'am
Not to mention the fact that the oceans of the earth that cover 2/3 of it's surface amount to about 97% of ALL the water on Earth. The other 3% or so is fresh water/ Ice etc and only a small fraction of 1% makes up underground water! Want data to back that up I'll be happy to provide the links to it.
Here's an even simpler question to ask. When a flood occurs what happens to all the water? It runs down hill and eventually into the ocean, right? Can we all agree on that point I hope? If all the land wwas covered with water just where would it find a down hill surface to flow along? So where would it all go, where did it go? It's not here now so it had to go somewhere? Otherwise we would still have a water world with very little if any land. And don't say the earth opened back up either! Because we all know what happens then, LAVA goes out, not water and not huge openings for 10 times more water that exist in the ocean! By the way that wouldn't be enough to cover the earth to the top of mount everest either, simple math proves that.
And don't say God did it, he can do anything! He wrote the laws of physics and those cannot be broken!
I see.
LOL, you see.....what?
Science is happy to find it's wrong. Darwin could be wrong.
Evolution has been tested and tested too many times to count, and has shown through experimentation to be valid.
Your turn. Are you willing to admit that creationism could be wrong? My guess is, based on the patterns of your posts, that you will refuse to consider any falsehood with creationism.
That's my prediction (hypothesis). Based off empirical evidence (your posts). I'd be happy to be wrong, but let's put my prediction to the test, shall we?
MoF, are you willing to admit that the Biblical creation model could be wrong?
JustWondering2
Just the facts Ma'am
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Darwin was wrong on a few things... but the overarching theory of evolution was sound.
As were some of his mechanisms... Decent with modification, sexual selection, survival/reproduction of the fittest as examples.
But that is the joy of science... you can be wrong on some things and have still made a valuable contribution to putting together what we know about how the world works.
Discovering what you are wrong about is just as important as being right.
wa:do
As were some of his mechanisms... Decent with modification, sexual selection, survival/reproduction of the fittest as examples.
But that is the joy of science... you can be wrong on some things and have still made a valuable contribution to putting together what we know about how the world works.
Discovering what you are wrong about is just as important as being right.
wa:do
JustWondering2
Just the facts Ma'am
Painted Wolf:
Another well spoke post, thank you! I always enjoy reading your post and try to learn something from them.
OBTW I borrowed your ending quote and used it in another thread..."mispeller of the world untie".
That's one of the best I've seen on here. LOL Of course I have no room to talk about spelling, it's not my best suit! Ha Ha
Another well spoke post, thank you! I always enjoy reading your post and try to learn something from them.
OBTW I borrowed your ending quote and used it in another thread..."mispeller of the world untie".
That's one of the best I've seen on here. LOL Of course I have no room to talk about spelling, it's not my best suit! Ha Ha
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
We need to scientifically investigate what could have caused that.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Because they are looking to support it.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
It's already been scientifically investigated. It's a thing called plate tectonics.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Let me see if I can answer this question with information that Darwin didn't have during his days which makes me, if I think about it, more educated than Darwin. We have the genetic code and both sides agree with that. The creationists model says that a creator created the original forms in their original condition, fully formed, beetles, wolf, horse, human, rabbit, etc... And inside these original forms was the genetic make up for diversity of species but limited to their original forms. Meaning the original forms can take on different characteristics and variety but only in their same original forms. They don't take on any other form. Non-coincidently that is what we see in nature.