Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Freddy:
You’ve never made any argument for an alternative.
Yes, I have. Just read my posts.
They tell us nothing about your alternatives. Else why were you asking for definitions before you could give one. You refused to answer until you had any, when I specifically told you that you could use any definition that suited you.

Why ask for definitions before you can answer if you’ve given an answer already?

Maybe you can find a picture or a cartoon that would help you. But we’re still waiting…
 
Right, that’s the end of that block. Time for lunch.
Oh good grief. It’s a UK uni. What on earth has happened to the education system in old blighty.

While you are having a bite to eat, can I ask you something very important. And I mean it is very important.

You will be asked during your education to present papers that explain various aspects of geology. To see if you understand them.

Are you going to write what you know to be untrue just to get qualified or are you going to be honest and tell the truth as you see it.

I’m sure that lying to gain an advantage in obtaining a degree would be a sin. Is that what you intend doing?
 
A lot of Thomas’s out here LOL!!!
It beats me. And I mean I’m honestly perplexed. Someone who thinks the world is 6,000 years old wanting to get a geology degree. It would be like a flat earther trying for an aeronautical qualification.
 
So, about the dates. Yes, they do fit outside the Biblical chronology of 6650 years. So we don’t accept the values as proof of their ages.
Thank you. So, as far as I can tell, you have no reliable dates as to when those fossils were laid down. Hence you cannot make any deductions relying on the dates of those fossils.
As I said previously, we use those values to show how the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere was lower in the past
For this you will need evidence. How about looking at the Lake Baikal sediments or the Lake Suigetsu sediments? They will have carbon that is dateable without making any assumptions about carbon concentrations. Making a scientific claim like this requires scientific evidence to support it. This is the realm of science, not of theology.
 
Will there ever be an answer? Ive been thinking about both of them.
Sure… “Evolution Or Creationism” is a false either-or matrix…
Which in turn contains ill-defined terms
aka … it’s speculatively presumptuous.
 
That is a concern for many Creationists in university.

From the reports that I have done so far, they don’t ask whether you believe any of the theories and concepts. They simply ask what conclusions can be drawn from a collection of data.

My Buddhist friend in secondary school disagreed with many things we were taught, yet he always had good grades (much better than me, that’s for sure). When I asked, he said that he always wrote what the teachers or examiners wanted to hear. Just because he wrote it down didn’t mean he believed any of it.

And God knows what’s going on. It’s not a black and white situation. If I am to progress in my studies and eventually become a respected geologist, I will need to keep my head down for a while and sometimes face difficult situations. In this day and age, there is no other alternative not because it is morally wrong to have my beliefs, but because the majority of the establishment believe it to be. I will do my best at word games to avoid answering certain questions, but God will know that I’m not doing it for my own personal gain, like intellectual pride. I wish to inspire others, and to teach them about God’s Works. Only God can bring good out of this situation.

Many Christians were martyred for their Faith, but not all of them. Some wormed their way around the situation without outright lying. And that is the only way to get around this problem unfortunately.
 
40.png
DictatorCzar:
Will there ever be an answer? Ive been thinking about both of them.
Sure… “Evolution Or Creationism” is a false either-or matrix…
Which in turn contains ill-defined terms
aka … it’s speculatively presumptuous.
Evolutionary theory speculates that rabbits will not be found in the same geological strata as dinosaurs. It presumes that the age of a fossil matches that of the surrounding rock.

Does creationism speculate and make presumptions? I thought it was quite definite about the process.
 
If I am to progress in my studies and eventually become a respected geologist…
I don’t want to be brutal here but I see no option…there aren’t any respected geologists who think the planet is 6,000 years old.

Once people realise that that is your belief (and it seems unlikely that you’ll try to hide this forever so you’ll have to come clean at some point) then they might respect your religious convictions, but they won’t respect that you had to lie to gain your degree.

What happens when you go for an interview and they ask questions about matters that cannot be valid from a young earth perspective? Do you ‘bend the truth’ there as well?
 
I will do my best at word games to avoid answering certain questions, but God will know that I’m not doing it for my own personal gain, like intellectual pride.
Or like trying to get a job with a presumably significant salary? That sort of gain?
 
40.png
Freddy:
God Made the Universe… and put Life into it.
I don’t see much speculation or presumption there. So I guess evolution and creationism are not the same in that respect.

Evolution: The best explanation for the process as we understand it - until a better one comes along.
Creationism: We are right. Everyone else is wrong and no other explanations will be considered.

That seems a little more accurate.
 
That’s because we don’t use such inaccurate dating methods as a measurement of time passage. We use the amount of C14 instead as an indication of C14 levels in the atmosphere at that time. Radiometric dating is no different than me using the wrong scientific equation to inappropriately interpret pieces of numerical data.

Besides, we already have our datable Flood event to create our fossils (unless we’re talking about the individual phases from the video above) to a time frame of a few years, instead of millions.

We don’t just use one dating method. We use several and then use carbon dating to see the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere at the time.
 
I don’t see much speculation or presumption there.
Man-Theories of how Life came to be - have always been speculative … presumptuous…
Meanwhile, the Origin of Life Itself - continues to stump Darwinists…
 
Last edited:
Enough of a job for me to survive.
And you don’t see this as being deceitful? To your professors and to your future employers? And most of all to yourself?

Worthy of confession I would have thought. But that’s not for me to decide. That’s your call, Raul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top