Best argument agenst Creationism?

lucaspa · #21 25th March 2003, 09:30 PM

Today at 04:42 PM abraham said this in Post #12

Evolution also has varying accounts of how it all started. Like other religions, they too are based on people's imaginations. Evolution is as much a religion as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc...

Ah, the old evolution = atheism fallacy. 

Unfortunately, evolution is not atheism.  There are evolutionists who are theists, evolutionists who are agnostics, and evolutionists who are atheists.  A person's view on religion is independent of whether they accept evolution as a (currently) valid scientific theory.

Science is a two step process.  The first step is formulation of a hypothesis/theory.  This is indeed an imaginative process. 

However, the next step is not imagination at all. That step is testing the hypothesis/theory against observations in the physical universe. If the observations contradict the hypothesis/theory, it is discarded.

This is what happened to creationism in the early 1800s.  Scientists (all of whom were theists and many of whom were ministers) tested creationism against the observations and found it to be false.  Those observations haven't gone away.  They are still there and creationism is still false.

tismyrock · #22 26th March 2003, 03:31 PM

the speed of light is slowing down

tismyrock · #23 26th March 2003, 03:33 PM

if earth was "13 billion" years old, the sun would have been touching it for about 12 billion of those years. we know this because the sun shrinks at about 1% per year. the sun would have only been small enough for life to start growing at most 10,000 years ago. by the way, that was the conclusion of the evolutionists.

most scientists have moved on to other theories because they just can't explain things. only school textbooks still have evolutionist junk because frankly public schools cant afford new books

tismyrock · #24 26th March 2003, 03:39 PM

the oldest account of civilization we have is 6,000 years ago. That fits perfectly with Biblical perspective.

biogenic law- like kinds give rise to like kinds. have you ever seen a reptile form from a bird? how about a horse from a fish? never has this law ever been seen violated. but if we're still "evolving" why hasn't it?

last september the evolutionist community finally couldnt deny the truth any longer: the T-rex never existed. they've known it for 8 years, but their credibility was at stake. sorry guys, there's no such thing as a t-rex. look it up for yourselves.

the whole concept of evolution is just ridiculous. rain just evolved in the sky when things needed to grow? life just somehow appeared from rocks and dust? if you can believe that on faith, why is it so difficult to fathom that God created everything?

Alessandro · #25 26th March 2003, 03:40 PM

The thing that I'm trying to understand is how on earth did they calculate all what has been calculated regarding almost everything?

Edit: I am talking about evolutionists.

aggie03 · #26 26th March 2003, 03:44 PM

Yesterday at 08:30 PM lucaspa said this in Post #21

Ah, the old evolution = atheism fallacy. 

Unfortunately, evolution is not atheism.  There are evolutionists who are theists, evolutionists who are agnostics, and evolutionists who are atheists.  A person's view on religion is independent of whether they accept evolution as a (currently) valid scientific theory.

Science is a two step process.  The first step is formulation of a hypothesis/theory.  This is indeed an imaginative process. 

However, the next step is not imagination at all. That step is testing the hypothesis/theory against observations in the physical universe. If the observations contradict the hypothesis/theory, it is discarded.

This is what happened to creationism in the early 1800s.  Scientists (all of whom were theists and many of whom were ministers) tested creationism against the observations and found it to be false.  Those observations haven't gone away.  They are still there and creationism is still false. [/b]

Just what observations are you talking about?  I'm very interested in this subject and would love to know!

tismyrock · #27 26th March 2003, 03:44 PM

by the way, i'm not saying the universe wasnt created in an aged state. obviously when God created everything, he created it older. for example, man wasn't first an embryo than a baby, than a boy than a man. he was created as a man. same thing with the trees and rocks and animals - they were created older. so, is it possible for a satellite to view things as old? absolutely. i dont know if God created things 13billion years old, but certainly they were created in an older state.

after all, they tested a dead dog, which they knew to have died 2 years ago, with every known method of dating (radio, carbon, etc). the youngest the dog could have been, according to evolutionists, was 23,000 years old. the oldest was over 10 million. is this what your basing your theory on?

tismyrock · #28 26th March 2003, 03:47 PM

"The thing that I'm trying to understand is how on earth did they calculate all what has been calculated regarding almost everything?

Edit: I am talking about evolutionists."

because if you extrapolate backwards the amount the sun shrinks per year (1%) you come to an enormous sun that, "13 billion" years ago, would have been the size of the entire universe.

Arikay · #29 26th March 2003, 03:51 PM

Tismyrock:

Good arguments against evolution for an uneducated debate. Rather bad and false arguments against evolution for an educated debate.

Thats really what it comes down to though. In a lesser educated debate, there are quite a few arguments against evolution. But the more educated the debate is, the fewer arguments there are as the more are proven false.

Alessandro · #30 26th March 2003, 03:52 PM

What about their dating methods, how did they come up with that?