Evolutionary debate

Evolution

  • Belive in evolution

  • Don't belive in evolution


Results are only viewable after voting.

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Answers in Genesis has listed over 10,000 scientists, PhD level.

Who are making unqualified judgment calls outside their field of expertise, rendering their PhD meaningless in this discussion.

Are you aware the original biologists didn't believe in evolution?

Are you aware the "original biologists" didn't believe in germ theory?

Obviously not. Only 19th century biologists started to believe in the theory of evolution. So that's less than 200 years vs. several thousand years of biologists who didn't believe in evolution.

Yeah.... its called scientific advancement.

Relevant portions 0:37-3:30 the rest of it is kind of irrelevant.

YouTube - Creationism vs Science



It was a copy from a document. Nowhere did i say i was going to be giving links out.

Well.... I learned in elementary school that citing sources is important.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ellinas
Upvote 0

Asycthian

Active Member
Feb 13, 2010
156
1
✟298.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Are... are you now disputing the existance of DNA???

Yes. DNA can never be proven. Evolutionists are obsessed with it because they always say ''chimps share 97% DNA with modern man'' etc. That's great, however you would then need to prove DNA is real.

As for fossils, they arn't conclusive evidence for anything either, they can only be interpretated. However how are fossils formed? We know via, a very rapid, quick process, yet evolution is not based on anything quick but gradual change over millions of years. Fossils are therefore nothing but evidence for the deluge and support creationism.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Yes. DNA can never be proven. Evolutionists are obsessed with it because they always say ''chimps share 97% DNA with modern man'' etc. That's great, however you would then need to prove DNA is real.
So... what's this then?
NOVA | Secret of Photo 51 | 1952: Photo 51 | PBS

As for fossils, they arn't conclusive evidence for anything either, they can only be interpretated. However how are fossils formed? We know via, a very rapid, quick process, yet evolution is not based on anything quick but gradual change over millions of years. Fossils are therefore nothing but evidence for the deluge and support creationism.
So fossils aren't evidence of anything, except when they are, and then only in support of your favoured theory, huh? Good one.
 
Upvote 0

Asycthian

Active Member
Feb 13, 2010
156
1
✟298.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
So fossils aren't evidence of anything, except when they are, and then only in support of your favoured theory, huh? Good one.

Do you accept the fact fossils are created very quickly?

A friend i have, has a fossilised key. The key is only a few years old.

Fossils don't take millions or billions of years to form, they are created very quickly, rapidly.

It fits well with the Biblical deluge but not the evolution belief.
 
Upvote 0

mpok1519

Veteran
Jul 8, 2007
11,508
347
✟28,850.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
DNA has been proven to be real.

Evolution also is real. Those who do not believe the truth are intellectually dishonest, and cognitive disonants. It is inherently harmful to a society to encourage embracing of delusion of any kind. Thankfuly our society has ways of marginalizing and discarding delusion and those who have and harvest it.
 
Upvote 0

Ellinas

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2009
424
32
✟727.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Do you accept the fact fossils are created very quickly?

A friend i have, has a fossilised key. The key is only a few years old.

Fossils don't take millions or billions of years to form, they are created very quickly, rapidly.

It fits well with the Biblical deluge but not the evolution belief.
This guy is beyond saving!

POE ALERT!!!!!!!! POE ALERT!!!!!!!! MAN YOUR STATIONS!!!!!!!!:doh::doh::doh:
 
Upvote 0

Asycthian

Active Member
Feb 13, 2010
156
1
✟298.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
This guy is beyond saving!

POE ALERT!!!!!!!! POE ALERT!!!!!!!! MAN YOUR STATIONS!!!!!!!!:doh::doh::doh:

'Fossil' hat

Fossil hat.

''This quick-forming 'stone' hat adds weight to the claims that creation scientists are correct when they say that thousands or millions of years are not needed to form rocks and fossilize animals and plants.''

And as i said, i have a friend who has a fossiled modern key.

Fossils prove creationism, not evolution.
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
'Fossil' hat

Fossil hat.

''This quick-forming 'stone' hat adds weight to the claims that creation scientists are correct when they say that thousands or millions of years are not needed to form rocks and fossilize animals and plants.''

Answers in Genesis is not a reliable source.

And as i said, i have a friend who has a fossiled modern key.

Look, I hate to tell you this, but metal keys don't fossilize....

Fossils prove creationism, not evolution.

No.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
38
London
✟30,012.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Eh, I think the money has a profound impact, but I don’t want to quibble. Your point on data being repeatable is valid but I wasn’t trying to imply a “conspiracy”, but rather influence.

Right. Except repeatability is par for the course with science and helps to reduce the likelihood of that influence affecting the collective conclusions.

Creationism, however, makes no empirically repeatable observations, and conducts no experiments. Therefore, it is a lot easier for charlatans to infiltrate.

How many earmarks are opposed in this manner each year?

No idea. How many constitutionally-violating earmarks are made each year?

You'd have to ask the ACLU - and from what I know of them, they're pretty consistent.

The existence of God cannot be scientifically validated, agreed. But then his existence can’t be scientifically invalidated either. You are correct, it is a matter of faith.

No arguments here.

I participate in evolution debates on various places around the web, and I see this comment quite often, that science makes no attempt to dis-prove God. I find this comment disingenuous, however, as the non-existence of God is built into the theory as a default assumption. You are correct that simply crediting God with everything can shut down certain scientific inquiry. But someone making the point that they are not trying to dis-prove something which they have already decided does not exist is a bit, well, silly, to be polite about it.

It's not a question of deciding it doesn't exist and then building the theory from there. It's just not necessary to formulating a full explanation of how naturalistic mechanisms work.

I'm an atomic physicist, and a Christian - but I use the same science as my colleagues. When my laser systems go wonky and can't be retuned but for hours of fiddling with the control box, I don't blame it on demons or whatever - it's just not necessary.

I am curious to know what you think of my previous statement though - if all natural mechanisms can be described without the need to explicitly include God, but if we believe He exists, then presumably He made the mechanisms that way? I consider it congruent with the notion that He expects us to choose to follow Him, not have science prove that He exists.
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
38
London
✟30,012.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Yes. DNA can never be proven. Evolutionists are obsessed with it because they always say ''chimps share 97% DNA with modern man'' etc. That's great, however you would then need to prove DNA is real.

Erm....we have pictures of it. :doh:

As for fossils, they arn't conclusive evidence for anything either, they can only be interpretated.

What is this interpretatation you speak of?

However how are fossils formed? We know via, a very rapid, quick process, yet evolution is not based on anything quick but gradual change over millions of years.

Um....fossilisation and evolution are two completely different things, genius.

Fossils are therefore nothing but evidence for the deluge and support creationism.

And the flood isn't anything to do with creation either - it's just in the same book.

Do you accept the fact fossils are created very quickly?

A friend i have, has a fossilised key. The key is only a few years old.

Fossils don't take millions or billions of years to form, they are created very quickly, rapidly.

Not necessarily. Depends on the mineral. This is the same canard as the "stalactites under a railway bridge" Kent Hovind came up with. Different minerals have different dissolution and deposition rates - depends on the solvent too.

It fits well with the Biblical deluge but not the evolution belief.

Nope.
 
Upvote 0

Friendly.Atheist

Regular Member
Feb 20, 2010
108
7
✟15,285.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The reason God is not inserted into every scientific theory is simple. Occam's razor. God is not necessary to make the models work. Evolution through natural selection works just fine without God. It would work with God too, but Occam's razor is about taking "dead" weight" off of an idea to make it as simple as possible.
In evolution, the interfearence of God is not required for it to work, so we apply Occam's razor and remove God from the picture.
 
Upvote 0

Asycthian

Active Member
Feb 13, 2010
156
1
✟298.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Answers in Genesis is not a reliable source.

Yet, when you atheists/evolutionists spam me websites and i reject them on the same basis, you don't like it.

Look, I hate to tell you this, but metal keys don't fossilize....

Anything can fossilize, see the hat i showed. Many miners items left in the mines have become fossilized, and these items were not there for millions of years. Fossils are created very quickly.

Evolutionists have got it all wrong (again).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Yet, when you atheists/evolutionists spam me websites and i reject them on the same basis, you don't like it.

Because our websites are run by experts with an education in the relevant field, don't have confirmation biases, and follow the scientific method. Answers in Genesis does not.


Anything can fossilize, see the hat i showed.

Because the hat was likely made out of leather. :doh:

Many miners items left in the mines have become fossilized, and these items were not there for millions of years. Fossils are created very quickly.

Evolutionists have got it all wrong (again).

That would be a nice anecdote if you had a reliable source.....
 
Upvote 0

Asycthian

Active Member
Feb 13, 2010
156
1
✟298.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Erm....we have pictures of it. :doh:

You evolutionists took picures of Piltdown Man for many years, then the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. Pictures are not conclusive proof of anything.

What is this interpretatation you speak of?

YEC interpretation: Fossils are evidence of rapid burial, by the deluge.

Evolutionist interpretation: Fossils are found in the 'geologic column', at different levels based on millions of years.

Um....fossilisation and evolution are two completely different things, genius.

The earth is only a few thousand years old. Fossils perfectly fit the young earth evidence, and as i stated fossils are proof of a rapid process, not as evolutionists say millions of years.

The YEC interpretation has more evidence going for it then the evolutionist interpetation of fossils.

Not necessarily. Depends on the mineral. This is the same canard as the "stalactites under a railway bridge" Kent Hovind came up with. Different minerals have different dissolution and deposition rates - depends on the solvent too.

This is more evolutionist dishonesty. Evolutionists claim that stalactites take thousands of years to form, but now see below:

99.jpg
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
38
London
✟30,012.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You evolutionists took picures of Piltdown Man for many years, then the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. Pictures are not conclusive proof of anything.

Ah yes, because when all else fails, resort to a conspiracy theory. Sooooo convincing.

You do realise also that it was scientists who outed Piltdown Man as a hoax, right? What have creationists ever done in that regard besides harp on about stuff that happened nearly a century ago?

Want me to show you some examples of creationist fraudulence also?

The point remains, there is plenty of evidence for DNA. Some of it has been posted already.

YEC interpretation: Fossils are evidence of rapid burial, by the deluge.

Evolutionist interpretation: Fossils are found in the 'geologic column', at different levels based on millions of years.

That's nice, I actually knew that, I was just indicating at how you spelt "interpreted".

The earth is only a few thousand years old. Fossils perfectly fit the young earth evidence, and as i stated fossils are proof of a rapid process, not as evolutionists say millions of years.

As I said, the rate of fossilisation depends on many factors. You can't just say it's "fast". And just because fossilisation is rapid doesn't mean evolution wasn't. So to conflate the two as you have is incorrect.

The YEC interpretation has more evidence going for it then the evolutionist interpetation of fossils.

Assertion.

This is more evolutionist dishonesty. Evolutionists claim that stalactites take thousands of years to form, but now see below:

99.jpg

Thank you for posting the exact same crap as Kent Hovind. This is exactly what I was talking about.

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that stalactite formation and fossilisation depend on several factors, key among them being THE RATE AT WHICH A MINERAL DISSOLVES AND DEPOSITS (because hey, look at that, it VARIES from mineral to mineral) :doh:

Modern buildings are not made from calcite. That should have been the first and obvious clue to you that you're talking out of your backside.

Do try and read the posts more carefully in future :wave:
 
Upvote 0