Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
alright. I was recently engaged in an online debate with a young earth creationist, that venomfangx guy on youtube.
so, anyhow, you really got to ignore young earth creationists here's why.
I pointed out a flaw in the hydroplate theory of where the flood waters came from. anyhow, I said that the there coulden't be a hydroplate because the earth's crust doesn't float. he said "you're forgetting to add God to the equation".
so, basically, they wont accept scientific evidence because they can just say that any holes in their ideas can be solved by an omnipotent being who can do anything.
I think another problem with this guy is he believes that it takes the same amount of faith to believe in science as it does to believe in a god.
sad really
I know who that VenomfangX guy is. What he does is he watches Kent Hovind videos and copies him exactly. I'm more of an independent study guy.
__________________ You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
No you can't --- according to "science", there is no such a thing as proof and truth.
Forgive my irresponsible verbiage. If science asserts an observed fact, or the stated consequence of an experiment, you can (re)check (prove) its veracity (truth).
Forgive my irresponsible verbiage. If science asserts an observed fact, or the stated consequence of an experiment, you can (re)check (prove) its veracity (truth).
Was Pluto a proved veracity? How about Thalidomide?
Was Pluto a proved veracity? How about Thalidomide?
Please explain, in your own words and preferably without quoting the Bible, which changes Pluto underwent in the last year, and how they might be relevant to the fundamentals of science.
As for thalidomide - we have ample evidence that a substance called 2-(2,6-dioxo-3-piperidyl)isoindole-1,3-dione, sold as Thalidomide, exists. Your point being?
__________________ "Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway."
- Andy Schlafly, conservapedia.com To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Please explain, in your own words and preferably without quoting the Bible, which changes Pluto underwent in the last year, and how they might be relevant to the fundamentals of science.
That's my point --- Pluto didn't change --- rather, your interpretation of "science" changed.
Originally Posted by MrGoodBytes
As for thalidomide - we have ample evidence that a substance called 2-(2,6-dioxo-3-piperidyl)isoindole-1,3-dione, sold as Thalidomide, exists. Your point being?
There's better evidence than fancy dioxo's and numbers that Thalidomide wasn't as safe as science said it was --- but I'd rather not post the pictures.
That's my point --- Pluto didn't change --- rather, your interpretation of "science" changed.
Not at all. Astronomers discovered in 1992 that there are many objects similar in size to Pluto beyond its orbit - which made the decision whether to call all those objects "planets" or stop calling Pluto that necessary.
There's better evidence than fancy dioxo's and numbers that Thalidomide wasn't as safe as science said it was --- but I'd rather not post the pictures.
Link me to the scientific study or clinical trial that said Thalidomide was safe, please.
__________________ "Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway."
- Andy Schlafly, conservapedia.com To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That's my point --- Pluto didn't change --- rather, your interpretation of "science" changed.
There's better evidence than fancy dioxo's and numbers that Thalidomide wasn't as safe as science said it was --- but I'd rather not post the pictures.
deciding whether or not pluto was a planet just wasn't science. it was just calling it something different. Now, im not a mind reader, but I think what you're saying is that you dont believe in science because it is changing so much. well, that's the good thing about science. it can adapt to new information. you cant change religious dogma if you find evidence that contradicts it. take for example the 6 day creation story. that story isn't ever going to be amended because that would be heresy, but the theory of evolution can be amended if new evidence is discovered.
BTW, VenomFangX, he's such a bastard. he's joseph stalin incarnate
Linear Mode
