Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
Mmm. More biblical passages. Again, I’m sorry that I have to say the rest of the post was ignored. Let me know when you have some details.

Thanks…
Click to expand...
I didn’t know you hate the bible this much. Bible or not, this is the conclusion that you need to come to by yourself if you are keen enough.

Science for you:


www.discovermagazine.com

The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself

Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.
www.discovermagazine.com www.discovermagazine.com
 
o_mlly said:
What is your definition of “scientific”?
Click to expand...
It’s not required for you to tell me what you think is your explanation. We need not agree on definitions, terms or whether your grammar is correct or not. You can use any method you choose.

Just tell us in your own words. I mean, how difficult can this possibly be. What on earth are you worried about? That someone might disagree with what you think the answer is? Nail it to the door. Have some conviction!
 
Noose001 said:
40.png
Freddy:
Mmm. More biblical passages. Again, I’m sorry that I have to say the rest of the post was ignored. Let me know when you have some details.

Thanks…
Click to expand...
I didn’t know you hate the bible this much.
Click to expand...
I dislike bible quotes when I ask for a personal position. So I ignore them. As I will ignore links to what someone else says. I want to know what you think the alternative is.

Whenever you’re ready. Got lots of time…
 
Freddy said:
I dislike bible quotes when I ask for a personal position. So I ignore them. As I will ignore links to what someone else says. I want to know what you think the alternative is.

Whenever you’re ready. Got lots of time…
Click to expand...
Me?! what i think?
Evolution -NO, creation- Yes.
How? read what i wrote for the past 2 hrs, you can ignore the bible verses.
 
Noose001 said:
40.png
Freddy:
I dislike bible quotes when I ask for a personal position. So I ignore them. As I will ignore links to what someone else says. I want to know what you think the alternative is.

Whenever you’re ready. Got lots of time…
Click to expand...
Me?! what i think?
Click to expand...
Yep. With some details. Like how old is the planet so we have an understanding of how long you think the process took. Like if there were dinosaurs. If things went extinct. Stuff like that.

As I said to o_mlly, nail it to the door, Noose! If you have convictions then gird your loins and tell us what they are. S’quite easy.
 
Freddy said:
Yep. With some details. Like how old is the planet so we have an understanding of how long you think the process took. Like if there were dinosaurs. If things went extinct. Stuff like that.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe i have been talking to myself all this time. 🤔
 
I just wanted to let you know that as a geology student, we have no idea how old the Earth actually is. Radiometric dating relies on numerous theories/assumptions that have been proven wrong or are weakly supported. Its all a word game. A geologist will never be able to tell you how old the Earth is with absolute certainty, so they’ll use big words that just mean ‘theories’ or ‘I’ll get back to you on that’
 
Noose001 said:
40.png
Freddy:
Yep. With some details. Like how old is the planet so we have an understanding of how long you think the process took. Like if there were dinosaurs. If things went extinct. Stuff like that.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe i have been talking to myself all this time. 🤔
Click to expand...
I think you might have been. I don’t know about anyone else, but I haven’t been spending much time reading about the pros and conns of darkness or whatever it was you’ve been posying.

C’mon man. S’near my bedtime down here. Tell me how old the planet is at least…
 
Gigantals said:
I just wanted to let you know that as a geology student, we have no idea how old the Earth actually is. Radiometric dating relies on numerous theories/assumptions that have been proven wrong or are weakly supported. Its all a word game. A geologist will never be able to tell you how old the Earth is with absolute certainty, so they’ll use big words that just mean ‘theories’ or ‘I’ll get back to you on that’
Click to expand...
You’re a geology student and you don’t know how old the earth is?

Wow.

Can I ask what college you go to?
 
Freddy said:
C’mon man. S’near my bedtime down here. Tell me how old the planet is at least…
Click to expand...
The planet exists in your mind, tell me how old is your mind and i’ll let you know the age of the planet.
 
I go to university (as I said above, I’m not in a good position, so I’m not going to give my location otherwise I’ll be kicked out for questioning my lecturers). And I can tell you that the ages presented to us in our courses by our geochronology teacher are inconclusive. I have approached my lecturers about such assumptions made, and they just brush it of, saying that it’s irrelevant. That’s why I don’t agree with the idea of an old Earth.

Radiometric dating relies on:
  1. The decay rate remaining constant (This is absurd. If the universe is billions of years old, how could something remain constant for so long?)
  2. The decay is a closed system (Again, how can you expect the number of overall isotopes not to change over that period of time? A rock billions of years old will have changed in that time, and there is plenty of evidence of such contamination in rocks that are far, far younger than that)
  3. The initial number of isotopes known (Because we’ve clearly been around for billions of years. We can only assume the initial number of isotopes by using those present, whilst ignoring the possibility that those isotopes further down the decay chain were already there when the rock was formed).
We’ve already seem how rocks from the 1982 eruption of Mt St Helens were dated to be 375 thousand - 2.8 million years old. And we’ve been able to carbon date dinosaur fossils (which is a method that shouldn’t be able to work for anything over 50,000 years old), let alone their being soft tissue still present in other fossils (including worms that are half a billion years old).

We may be taught that the Earth is billions of years old, but such anomalies reveal the house of cards that those dating methods stand on. The methods are simply too weak against basic scientific scrutiny and evidence provided.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
It’s not required for you to tell me what you think is your explanation. We need not agree on definitions …
Click to expand...
Yes, I do require it as did your hero, “If you want to converse with me, first define your terms” (Voltaire, Atheist, Philosopher).

The preamble to our debate put more than just a definition of “scientific” for you to respond to.
What else do you have? I suspect nothing but am hopeful. Will we see another Lelinator bailout? Probably.
 
Science is Human’s search for the truth and it starts with theories and as it progresses the truth is revealed. Theories are replaced with better ones as man comes closer to the truth - its an evolution of ideas. There is more evidence of evolution is going down the right path to get the truth - the only evidence of creation is a book that’s says it was created. A story handed down generation to generation - there was a need for understanding and that’s all they had back then and that was their theory. Doesn’t hold water today. People are allowed free thinking its Gods gift and have found the creation theory doesn’t work anymore.
 
Gigantals said:
I go to university (as I said above, I’m not in a good position, so I’m not going to give my location otherwise I’ll be kicked out for questioning my lecturers).
Click to expand...
Well, you got that right at least. At least if you haven’t got a good reason for questioning them. Maybe this is a chance for you to make a name for yourself. But…

I dunno. My bet would be that you believe the world is just a few thousand years old. Which makes me wonder - why on earth did you go to uni and take a subject that you don’t think has any of the answers right. I mean, you would have known that they’d be teaching you that we live on a rock that is billions of years old.

It would be like taking a course on astrophysics if you thought the world was flat. Why did you do it?
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
It’s not required for you to tell me what you think is your explanation. We need not agree on definitions …
Click to expand...
Yes, I do require it as did your hero, “If you want to converse with me, first define your terms” (Voltaire, Atheist, Philosopher).

The preamble to our debate put more than just a definition of “scientific” for you to respond to.
What else do you have? I suspect nothing but am hopeful. Will we see another Lelinator bailout? Probably.
Click to expand...
I’m not looking for a debate. I just want you to know what your position is. That’s all. Seriously.

What is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top