creationsts drinking Kool-Aid

[LiveFreeOrDie]

In the spirit of "challenge", I offer the following to all creationists:

1. Tell us when the Earth was created.

2. Provide three scientifically sound lines of evidence to back it up.

 

[npetreley]

Wow, Jerry, this one's easy! But you have to pay careful attention, because this involves a concept with which you are unfamiliar.

In the spirit of "challenge", I offer the following to all creationists:

1. Tell us when the Earth was created.

I have no idea.

That makes any answer to your follow up question irrelevant.

Got any more brilliant challenges?

 

[Jerry Smith]

That wasn't Jerry. That was LFOD.

I think its note-worthy that there is something you will admit to not knowing. Anything else you want to bring out into the open?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
I have no idea.

Great. So the Earth could in fact be 4.5 billion years old, right?

 

[Darwin RULEZ]

Yes.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


Great. So the Earth could in fact be 4.5 billion years old, right?

I have no idea if it could or not.

Sorry, Jerry.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Now you do know that Nick refuses to take a stand on the young Earth theology. I, for one hope it is because he realises that it is an indefensable position. If he is willing to admit that the Earth is likely more than 10,000 years old there may be some hope for him yet. But still I do not expect him to ever take a stand on it while he still denys evolution because he will loose the only friend he has in this forum, Randman.

I think Nick just gave us the perfect way to answer any question posted by him. But somehow I don't think he would take that answer gracefuly.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Now you do know that Nick refuses to take a stand on the young Earth theology.

Is there something wrong with not knowing the answer?

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
I, for one hope it is because he realises that it is an indefensable position.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
If he is willing to admit that the Earth is likely more than 10,000 years old there may be some hope for him yet.

Sorry. I don't know if it's likely or unlikely. No hope for me, I guess.

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
But still I do not expect him to ever take a stand on it while he still denys evolution because he will loose the only friend he has in this forum, Randman.

But I'd gain so many wonderful new friends like you.

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
I think Nick just gave us the perfect way to answer any question posted by him. But somehow I don't think he would take that answer gracefuly.

Huh? I wish one of you actually had the courage to admit you don't know of any transitionals in 99.9% of the fossil record, that you don't know the age of the earth, etc. Now THAT would be a novel feature if you could simply evolve it by sheer will.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley

Huh? I wish one of you actually had the courage to admit you don't know of any transitionals in 99.9% of the fossil record, that you don't know the age of the earth, etc. Now THAT would be a novel feature if you could simply evolve it by sheer will.

Fossil record? I don't, because I'm not a paleontologist. So I don't know. However, abscence of evidence isn't evidence of abscence. (sound familiar?)

And I don't know the age of the earth, but I think it's between 4-5 billion years old.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally asked by me
Great. So the Earth could in fact be 4.5 billion years old, right?

Originally posted by npetreley
I have no idea if it could or not.

I have this mental image of you sticking your finger in your ears and saying "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah". But if that's the way you want it, fine.

Originally posted by npetreley
Is there something wrong with not knowing the answer?

Absolutely not. It's your continued insistence that no one else can know the answer (or at least make an intelligent estimate) that is irritating and completely groundless.

Huh? I wish one of you actually had the courage to admit you don't know of any transitionals in 99.9% of the fossil record[/q]

Now this is a flat out lie. Jerry admitted he didn't know any. I won't admit it because I provided two examples of transitionals (I will admit they weren't Petreley-certified transitionals, however).

that you don't know the age of the earth, etc.

Why should we admit that when we have pretty compelling evidence for the age of the Earth?

 

[flyingpenguin]

The problem evolutionists have (some of them anyway), and I guess the problem many creationists have (again, some of them) is that they believe they need to prove themselves and their beliefs.

Creation doesn't need proof. Just like God doesn't need proof.

If you require proof of Creation, then you need to take a long look how strong your faith is, and find a way to strengthen it.

I mean seriously, you could go around and around with evolutionists until you actually do evolve into something (which in my opinion would never happen ). What joy do you get out of nitpicking something that you don't even believe in? What benefit does that give?

Now, there is a benefit to strengthening a Christian brother in his faith by showing him the wonders of His creation, but attacking people (like Nick seems to like to do) is totally useless. Be strong in your faith, and let the scientists argue amongst themselves.

David

 

[Joe V.]

Be strong in your faith, and let the scientists argue amongst themselves.

Hear hear! But the problem IS people like Nick. They persistently insist that evolution is bogus and go to great lengths to shoot it down without ever providing a legitimate alternative - one that is scientfically sound. Nick never provides an alternate theory, he only tries shooting down the existing one. Yeah, it has holes in it, but anything the creationists offer has way more holes.

- Joe

 

[food4thought]

I would agree, but creationists bowing out of the debate has led to many young people having their faith destroyed by the suppossed "facts" of evolution as they had no one to refute the sometimes logical sounding arguments.

 

[randman]

"If he is willing to admit that the Earth is likely more than 10,000 years old there may be some hope for him yet. But still I do not expect him to ever take a stand on it while he still denys evolution because he will loose the only friend he has in this forum, Randman."

Huh? Lewis, and some of the other evolutionists here, Nick has done admirable job. You guys just don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. Nor do you pay attention, which is evident by your ridiculous assertation above.

As far as time and the creation, I do not even consider time and history a fixed commodity so to speak.

 

[randman]

"Why should we admit that when we have pretty compelling evidence for the age of the Earth?"

You don't have evidence that the age of the earth isn't changing though.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by food4thought
I would agree, but creationists bowing out of the debate has led to many young people having their faith destroyed by the suppossed "facts" of evolution as they had no one to refute the sometimes logical sounding arguments.

If you'd like to reduce the number of young people having their faith destroyed by facts, then I suggest you stop making their faith so contingent on a notion so at odds with the facts to begin with.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
You don't have evidence that the age of the earth isn't changing though.

Who said it's not changing? Every second that goes by, the Earth gets one second older.

 

[flyingpenguin]

If a person is truly a believer, or truly wants to be a believer, then the explanation that God created this wonderful world in a mature state should be sufficient I would think. I don't pretend to understand how creation happened, I just know that it did.

David

 

[Jerry Smith]

David, you freely admit you don't understand how creation happened. Why then, eliminate the possibility that science is correct in their explanations of how it happened? Is it that much more troublesome to not understand how this is compatible with the Biblical account than it is to not understand how creation happened?

 

[randman]

Well, I did not happen on these ideas related to time in consideration of creation but other issues. I just thought it may have some application here, especially when you consider the curse upon the land.
After God cursed the earth, and man was cast out of Eden, the earth it appears was immediately and radically changed in every way. How that change was effected is an interesting subject. I tend to think the even physical laws and principles were changed for the entire creation.