Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[lasthero]

Would you be willing to participate in a one on one formal debate where you would have to address the actual evidence that I would present?

In case you missed it, -57.

 

[-57]

You just made that claim. You stated that all of those skulls come from species that are the same kind.

If this isn't so, then show us where in that series there is a separation between kinds, and the criteria you used to make that determination.

I'm speaking oif humans. Humans are of the created kind. A separate creation from the primates.

 

[-57]

In case you missed it, -57.

What's there to debate?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. Speciation is not good enough. Mostly because it doesn't prove anything. If the evolutionary theory claims all life sprang from a single cell, but the only evidence is processes described in Genesis, then there really isn't any evidence for a single cell to produce every living being.

How is a description in Genesis "evidence"?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

How is a description in Genesis "evidence"?

It's what the creationist theory is based on.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Pressure does not change the rate of radiometric decay. It has been tested in the lab at pressures much higher than would be produced by the flood.

Additionally, meteorites and lunar rocks ALSO date to billions of years, and they were never subjected to the flood at all.

Radiometric dating can't date anything that far back regardless. And dating space rocks that are subjected to a very different atmosphere isn't very reliable in that it isn't based on the half-life we based the dating system on.

 

[46AND2]

Radiometric dating can't date anything that far back regardless. And dating space rocks that are subjected to a very different atmosphere isn't very reliable in that it isn't based on the half-life we based the dating system on.

The atmosphere has nothing to do with the half-life. Do you have any evidence that radioactive decay occurs at a different rate in space? What mechanism causes it to change?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's what the creationist theory is based on.

That doesn't answer the question: "How is the description in Genesis 'evidence?'"

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

That doesn't answer the question: "How is the description in Genesis 'evidence?'"

How is it not?

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Speciation is not good enough. Mostly because it doesn't prove anything. If the evolutionary theory claims all life sprang from a single cell, but the only evidence is processes described in Genesis, then there really isn't any evidence for a single cell to produce every living being.

There is.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity

All life shares metabolic pathways, codons, and other features.

And since we "can't" observe that because the earth is "billions" of years old, then all we really have is speculation formed by opinions of scientists who don't want to accept the fact that God created the earth.

We have well supported theories, which are not opinions. Have you heard of the scientific method? You haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence that scientists are ignoring.

Because the only way to prove He didn't would be to observe living beings well beyond our lifetime.

We don't have to disprove what you can not evidence.

Even though the idea of a billions old earth came from a misreading of geologic evidence left behind by the flood.

Yet another claim that you have made up.

Which caused pressure on the earth's surface that give current radiometric dating methods a skewed reading.

Also made up.

Especially since a worldwide flood would have screwed with the atmosphere so much that the half-life of carbon would have been wildly different than we observe today, but we have no way of knowing what it used to be.

We don't use carbon to date rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Radiometric dating can't date anything that far back regardless.

Why not?

And dating space rocks that are subjected to a very different atmosphere isn't very reliable in that it isn't based on the half-life we based the dating system on.

Why isn't it reliable? Why would Uranium or Potassium-40 decay at a different rate in space?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's what the creationist theory is based on.

It's not based on evidence?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Especially since a worldwide flood would have screwed with the atmosphere so much that the half-life of carbon would have been wildly different than we observe today, but we have no way of knowing what it used to be.

Ok, I'll ask: How does the half-life of carbon change by getting it wet?

 

[Loudmouth]

No. God created them to reproduce. People have decided to label it as evidence of a process that disproves God.

First, evolution no more disproves God than heliocentrism.

Two, you ignore mutations.

Three, you haven't shown that God created anything.

Just because you call it macroevolution,

I gave you the dictionary definition. It isn't my definition.

doesn't make it the kind of evolution that the evolutionary theory was based on.

It is the kind of evolution that evolutionary theory is based on. Macroevolution is speciation. Period. Larger scale changes are just one speciation event stacked on another.

 

[Loudmouth]

I forgot to mention plaster of parish, bias and wild imagination.

You are lying. Did you see the bone in that picture?

 

[Loudmouth]

What's there to debate?

The evidence. Are you willing to have a one on one formal debate where you agree to actually address the evidence that is presented?

 

[46AND2]

Radiometric dating can't date anything that far back regardless. And dating space rocks that are subjected to a very different atmosphere isn't very reliable in that it isn't based on the half-life we based the dating system on.

If it is your claim that high pressure causes radioactive dating to be skewed in the "too old" range, would not the low pressure of space skew it in the opposite direction?

 

[lasthero]

Radiometric dating can't date anything that far back regardless.

How far back Can it date? Why?

 

[-57]

It's what the creationist theory is based on.

It says life is so complicated...it could not have evolved from a dead rock.

 

[-57]

The evidence. Are you willing to have a one on one formal debate where you agree to actually address the evidence that is presented?

Debate what?