artsylady Posted May 28, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 28, 2004 Honestly, Scientific Athiest has been the only one here who has demenostrated legitimate debate tactics. I would love to see a Creationist respond in kind. So far, I have not. This saddens me. It saddens me that you cannot understand that the Young Earth Creationism is a very legitimate and verifiable theory with a solid foundation. It may not be your theory of choice to date but let me ask you. You've been debating here for awhile now. Is there one point made by Creationists yet that was so completely stupid and inadequate that the athiests crushed beyond oblivion? (and I mean by regular posters, not Darwin's deathbed quote or anything like that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted May 28, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 28, 2004 SA, On the origin of oil. Have you ever read Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision (1950)? No, I'm afraid I havn't, I've never even heard of the theory in question. That's way too vague. Again, that's like saying 'we all believe in evolution". How exactly is it vague to say that "every single species on earth is related through common ancestry". It's not vague at all, it's extremely precise, and a very grand claim indeed, requiring much evidence. It also make concrete predictions of course, that can be tested. You can't agree on a single species because the 'proof' is subject to interpretation to different philosophies. hang on, we agree on *every single species*!! Every last species on earth is related. Also, the broad scale of which phylum is which, which group is which, which family is which is also agreed upon for the most part. Where you get into real disagreement is in say, how fast evolution has proceeded, and whether it is more gradual or more stop/start. Another major disagreement is in how many mutations have no immediate effect, and how many are harmful etc. You also get disagreement about fine phylogenetic detail - for example, are humans more closely related to chimps or gorillas, because these problems involve fine detail, and are often very close to the bounds of error of genetic analysis etc. But in terms of the core of the theory of evolution, there is no discord. We are all related, and natural selection played a large part in that, or that there is no doubt by any evolutionary scientist. Also, just what is the point you are getting at? There is disagreement about, well, just about every theory going, and often more basic disagreement. For example, quantum mechanics and general relativity are mutually exclusive, they can't both be true without significant modification. You can imagine how that splits physicists!! Of course, division in science isn't a sign of weakness - far from it - it's actually a sign that science is very healthy indeed, because without open debate and disagreement, science cannot progress. If everyone was singing from the same dogmatic hymn-sheet, then science could never advance or iterate toward the whole truth. It saddens me that you cannot understand that the Young Earth Creationism is a very legitimate and verifiable theory with a solid foundation. I'm afraid this is just untrue. Firstly, the theory of a young earth is neither a theory, nor has it a solid foundation. In order to be a theory, it has to explain the available evidence AND have made at least one testable prediction that has come true. Young earth has done neither. It is incapable of explaining the vast majority of the evidence, and all predictions one could think of have been proven false. Secondly, for the same reasons as it isn't a theory, it clearly has no solid foundation - because that would involve evidence and proof. The Young Earth position goes against almost all the evidence available, therefore it cannot have a solid foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 28, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Is there one point made by Creationists yet that was so completely stupid and inadequate that the athiests crushed beyond oblivion? (and I mean by regular posters, not Darwin's deathbed quote or anything like that) Well, I don't have time to go through all the posts on all the threads on this matter, but I can think of one off the top of my head: "Discovering one fish that scientists thought was extint completely disproves the entire theory of evolution!!!" OK, I'm exadurating, but that's what the argument seemed to amounted to. If someone is creating a list of "Top 10 funniest claims you have heard creationists make," I am sure that one would be included among the listed. Seriously, do you honestly believe evolutionary biologists went into a panic at the discovery of that fish? Of course not. Would you like to know how they responded? "Coo-oo-ool!" To say that the discovery of one species previously believed to have been extinct might indicate other species thought extinct might still be alive is not an unreasonable assumption. However, to assume that this means all species claimed to have been extinct are "still out there alive" somewhere is a completely unreasonable assumption. As I had stated before, there are more extinct species identified in the fossil record than there are identified species currently alive on the planet right now. Considering how many species we have identified alive on this planet, to make an assumption that all those other are still roaming around somewhere is quite far-fetched. This would mean that off all the millions of species we have identified, we haven't even seen over half of what exists. Just because one species was found to still be alive, does this give you the grounding to boldly proclaim that there are still millions of species out there we have yet to find? I hardly believe so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 28, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Evolution touches on almost (perhaps all) every branch of science. . . . Many years ago I did read many books by evolutionists. Much of what was then written has been altered or changed since then. I used to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Timer Posted May 29, 2004 Group: Soapbox - Members Followers: 2 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 962 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 52 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/11/1932 Share Posted May 29, 2004 Nebula, observable evidence and speculation (theory) regarding that evidence are two different things. To use your example of the Rocky and Appalachian ranges I would say that the former is younger and the latter is older. That doesn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 29, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 29, 2004 I asked: Is there one point made by Creationists yet that was so completely stupid and inadequate that the athiests crushed beyond oblivion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 29, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 29, 2004 SA: I think you're purposely avoiding the question again. I think you know exactly what I am looking for but you are purposely generalizing. Okay, we're all related and are one big happy family. All evolutionists can agree on that and there is a lot of proof for that, so you say. Now, can you name a single 'family tree' or evolutionary lineage that all evolutionists agree on? Please, be specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 29, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 29, 2004 Nebula, observable evidence and speculation (theory) regarding that evidence are two different things. . . . I could speculate that the Appalachian were formed before, during or shortly after Noah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 29, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 29, 2004 I asked: Is there one point made by Creationists yet that was so completely stupid and inadequate that the athiests crushed beyond oblivion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Timer Posted May 29, 2004 Group: Soapbox - Members Followers: 2 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 962 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 52 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/11/1932 Share Posted May 29, 2004 Nebula If you believe this to be untrue, about how "Creation scientists" operate, please show me otherwise. They both interpret the evidence in this way. For example evolutionist will discard dates that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts