spiritman Posted November 20, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 So you still have to convince me that we have an old earth without using Radiometric dating. Score Evolutionists 1 Creationists 13 Spreading rates of the Atlantic Seafloor (paleomagnetism confirms movement for millions of years) Thick layers of Ooze Thick formations made of clay without lamination because of bioturbation Coral reefs Best regards Please provide me with a link. Sorry I didn't respond sooner but I was on a vacation from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlegrimlin1 Posted November 20, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 2 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/20/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2009 Because true science verily contradicts the "answers" of religion, theists have to go out and find someway to make it fit into their religion. Ever just think that your god had nothing to do with the universe? Openmindedness is needed to proceed. Science works from data to the answer, whereas religion has thier books written by very ignorant and superticious people thousands of years ago giving them the "answers" and you find data in the universe to support its "answer." The only way science can progress is to ignore god for a moment and find some sense and logic. People used to believe gods were responsible for illness, rain, thunder, sunlight, etc. However, on every occasion, gods have been pushed from those voids of knowledge. And of course you will find "data" like this on a creationist website... it is so baised towards reality, I just have to laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritman Posted November 20, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 Because true science verily contradicts the "answers" of religion, theists have to go out and find someway to make it fit into their religion. Ever just think that your god had nothing to do with the universe? Openmindedness is needed to proceed. Science works from data to the answer, whereas religion has thier books written by very ignorant and superticious people thousands of years ago giving them the "answers" and you find data in the universe to support its "answer." The only way science can progress is to ignore god for a moment and find some sense and logic. People used to believe gods were responsible for illness, rain, thunder, sunlight, etc. However, on every occasion, gods have been pushed from those voids of knowledge. And of course you will find "data" like this on a creationist website... it is so baised towards reality, I just have to laugh. There is no proof for Macro evolution. If you have taken the time to read this entire post, you would have seen that the 4 or 5 Atheists that have showed what they claimed as evidence, could not come up with any verifiable proof. However you are welcome to try and convince us. So tell me how can you look at the mechanical way the earth system works and be convinced it is an accident? How can the DNA that has the information in it to build an entire person or animal be an accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlegrimlin1 Posted November 20, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 2 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/20/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2009 There is no proof for Macro evolution. If you have taken the time to read this entire post, you would have seen that the 4 or 5 Atheists that have showed what they claimed as evidence, could not come up with any verifiable proof. However you are welcome to try and convince us. So tell me how can you look at the mechanical way the earth system works and be convinced it is an accident? How can the DNA that has the information in it to build an entire person or animal be an accident? Well firstly, it was a very slim probablility but it was bound to happen being that the universe is unarguably huge. 2nd, I will not label the human ignorance of information as a god. Science has done a great job of digging answers out of the earth and universe alike. Earth had the right conditions for life-forms to thrive, mostly just bacteria at the time. Some kind of evolution must have happened at somepoint, I will not accept the magical answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAtheist Posted November 20, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 7 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/19/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2009 So you still have to convince me that we have an old earth without using Radiometric dating. Score Evolutionists 1 Creationists 13 Spreading rates of the Atlantic Seafloor (paleomagnetism confirms movement for millions of years) Thick layers of Ooze Thick formations made of clay without lamination because of bioturbation Coral reefs Best regards Welcome to the board and back to the topic - can you provide evidence from science that 'Macro-Evolution' is science? I don't think so. I'm a geologist, not a biologist. Can you provide evidence from science that the compounded effects of "Micro-Evolution" doesn't lead to "Macro-Evolution"? Is it within the scope of science to demonstrate the compounded effects of "Micro-Evolution" can lead to "Macro-Evolution"? Where does the information come from to change a theropod lung into an avian flow-through lung? Yes, it is possible to demonstrate that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution. You just need to stay alive for another 50.000 years in order to witness undeniable proof. I don't need such demonstration. I accept biologic evolution as the best explanation for the fossilrecord. I have no intention browsing through the web in order to "debate" change from the theropod lung into an avian flow-through lung. You can pick billions of unanswered questions and argue such as evidence of creation (or intelligent design), the problem is these arguments are designed for the creationists and not the scientific audience you pretend to corner with such arguments. No one needs to understand or be able to explain anything possible in order for biologic evolution to take place. Now tell me: Can you provide evidence from science that the compounded effects of "Micro-Evolution" doesn't lead to "Macro-Evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAtheist Posted November 20, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 7 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/19/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2009 (edited) So you still have to convince me that we have an old earth without using Radiometric dating. Score Evolutionists 1 Creationists 13 Spreading rates of the Atlantic Seafloor (paleomagnetism confirms movement for millions of years) Thick layers of Ooze Thick formations made of clay without lamination because of bioturbation Coral reefs Best regards Please provide me with a link. Sorry I didn't respond sooner but I was on a vacation from here. Provide you with a link to what exactly? USGS Google Edited November 20, 2009 by BornAtheist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 20, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted November 20, 2009 So you still have to convince me that we have an old earth without using Radiometric dating. Score Evolutionists 1 Creationists 13 Spreading rates of the Atlantic Seafloor (paleomagnetism confirms movement for millions of years) Thick layers of Ooze Thick formations made of clay without lamination because of bioturbation Coral reefs Best regards Welcome to the board and back to the topic - can you provide evidence from science that 'Macro-Evolution' is science? I don't think so. I'm a geologist, not a biologist. Can you provide evidence from science that the compounded effects of "Micro-Evolution" doesn't lead to "Macro-Evolution"? Is it within the scope of science to demonstrate the compounded effects of "Micro-Evolution" can lead to "Macro-Evolution"? Where does the information come from to change a theropod lung into an avian flow-through lung? Yes, it is possible to demonstrate that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution. You just need to stay alive for another 50.000 years in order to witness undeniable proof. I don't need such demonstration. I accept biologic evolution as the best explanation for the fossilrecord. I have no intention browsing through the web in order to "debate" change from the theropod lung into an avian flow-through lung. You can pick billions of unanswered questions and argue such as evidence of creation (or intelligent design), the problem is these arguments are designed for the creationists and not the scientific audience you pretend to corner with such arguments. No one needs to understand or be able to explain anything possible in order for biologic evolution to take place. Now tell me: Can you provide evidence from science that the compounded effects of "Micro-Evolution" doesn't lead to "Macro-Evolution? So far you have provided no evidence, nor proof of your own opinions, your argument is therefor flawed at best. I for one do not have to justify my faith. You are on a Christian site and the statement of faith is clear. Please understand that you came here to argue a point that no believer on this site agrees with in any way. It is up to you to prove your statements. So essentially it is up to you to try and disprove the above question, without just cut and paste please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornAtheist Posted November 20, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 7 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/19/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2009 So you still have to convince me that we have an old earth without using Radiometric dating. Score Evolutionists 1 Creationists 13 Spreading rates of the Atlantic Seafloor (paleomagnetism confirms movement for millions of years) Thick layers of Ooze Thick formations made of clay without lamination because of bioturbation Coral reefs Best regards Welcome to the board and back to the topic - can you provide evidence from science that 'Macro-Evolution' is science? I don't think so. I'm a geologist, not a biologist. Can you provide evidence from science that the compounded effects of "Micro-Evolution" doesn't lead to "Macro-Evolution"? Is it within the scope of science to demonstrate the compounded effects of "Micro-Evolution" can lead to "Macro-Evolution"? Where does the information come from to change a theropod lung into an avian flow-through lung? Yes, it is possible to demonstrate that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution. You just need to stay alive for another 50.000 years in order to witness undeniable proof. I don't need such demonstration. I accept biologic evolution as the best explanation for the fossilrecord. I have no intention browsing through the web in order to "debate" change from the theropod lung into an avian flow-through lung. You can pick billions of unanswered questions and argue such as evidence of creation (or intelligent design), the problem is these arguments are designed for the creationists and not the scientific audience you pretend to corner with such arguments. No one needs to understand or be able to explain anything possible in order for biologic evolution to take place. Now tell me: Can you provide evidence from science that the compounded effects of "Micro-Evolution" doesn't lead to "Macro-Evolution? So far you have provided no evidence, nor proof of your own opinions, your argument is therefor flawed at best. I for one do not have to justify my faith. You are on a Christian site and the statement of faith is clear. Please understand that you came here to argue a point that no believer on this site agrees with in any way. It is up to you to prove your statements. So essentially it is up to you to try and disprove the above question, without just cut and paste please I posted some evidence of an old earth without using radiometric dating: Spreading rates of the Atlantic Seafloor (paleomagnetism confirms movement for millions of years) Thick layers of Ooze Thick formations made of clay without lamination because of bioturbation Coral reefs And someone responded by asking me for evidence of makro-evolution being science (?), and you asking me for a link.. Now what do you want? A link to the Atlantic Seafloor, Ooze, clay formations and coral reefs? Do you doubt the existens of such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted November 20, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.07 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2009 There is no proof for Macro evolution. If you have taken the time to read this entire post, you would have seen that the 4 or 5 Atheists that have showed what they claimed as evidence, could not come up with any verifiable proof. However you are welcome to try and convince us. So tell me how can you look at the mechanical way the earth system works and be convinced it is an accident? How can the DNA that has the information in it to build an entire person or animal be an accident? Well firstly, it was a very slim probablility but it was bound to happen being that the universe is unarguably huge. 2nd, I will not label the human ignorance of information as a god. Science has done a great job of digging answers out of the earth and universe alike. Earth had the right conditions for life-forms to thrive, mostly just bacteria at the time. Some kind of evolution must have happened at somepoint, I will not accept the magical answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Durnan Posted November 20, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,782 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/14/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2009 Two religions at loggerheads, yes? One says the Creator-God created heaven & earth; the other says it was accomplished by the dual gods, god Fat Chance and god Complete AccidentI love the self-concocted religion of atheism: it's so scutable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts