S
Silent Bob
Guest
ArchangelGabriel said:
There are sciences like comparative anatomy and taxonomy that deal directly with those questions.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
ArchangelGabriel said:how similar do two fosils have to be to be considered for a past form?
it seems to me that your fossil's "similarities" rely on human opinion only
ArchangelGabriel said:
these two are much more similar, in my opinion
<-monkey cheetah->
GraceInHim said:Hitler loved to read Darwins theory - and into Arien pychcos to eliminate a stronger race for his own blue eyed blondes.
oh differencs equal falsness okay then ill go get the differences for your monkey / human thingyCronic said:Look at the jaw structure, look at the shape of the brain cavity (don't know a better word) look at the eye sockets look at the nose, the cheeks etc. You CAN tell the differences even if you are bad at find the difference games.
ArchangelGabriel said:-what evidence?
-there are way to many? since when does majority have a ruling in Spiritual beliefs? just because im in a room with 10 poeple who think God isnt real and only 2 who know he is doesnt mean that the 10 are correct
-who do you say the earth "looks" old? are you comparing it to a picture of when the earth was younger? or something?
ArchangelGabriel said:oh differencs equal falsness okay then ill go get the differences for your monkey / human thingy
dunkel said:Ignoring the grammatical problems I have with this statement, let's look at the logical issue you bring up. Are you implying that we should throw out Darwin because Hitler "loved to read" his theories? Assuming this is true, should we judge a theory based on who its proponents are? If that were truly the case, we should throw out the Bible, as well, because there have undoubtedly been many bad things done by many people that "loved to read" the Bible. Surely this is not what you are saying?
dunkel said:It's doubtful that any amount of evidence will convince you, but just for the hell of it, I'll answer your question as well as I can.
1. The evidence is too great to catalog here in a simple post on some message board. It ranges from carbon dating to fossils to the fact that we can see the universe expanding. Hell, we have human written records as old as creationists believe the world to be, maybe even older. Then, of course, there are the unwritten records, ruins, etc that push even mankind, let alone the rest of the world, even further back. The only way for a creationist to not be convinced by the evidence is if they are, I'm sorry, extremly stupid, are simply choosing to ignore it, or they have some crazy alternate explantation such as "God made it look old" (with no good reason for him to have done so).
2. Yes, the the vast majority of scientists in the field believe the Earth is very, very old. The majority doesn't always get it right, that is true. However, if you put 12 people in the theoretical room that you mentioned, ask them each the same question independently, and 10 of them come up with the same answer, chances are those 10 are correct.
3. Well, yes, we can have a good idea of how the Earth looked way back when, based on things that we can observe here and now, today. Wind erosion, water erosion, etc. Weather patterns have changed even over the last few hundred or a thousand years, so we can get an idea of how weather changes affect climate. But, to follow your logic...how do you know Genesis is correct? Were you there? Do you have a picture or video? No? How about the author of Genesis? Was he there? Does he have pictures? Then how do you know?
I can guess the answer to all of my arguments here...God just made it that way, right?
ArchangelGabriel said:1.well sense i cant find wrong in what you dont post i will concentrate on what you did
-how old do the unwritten records go back to?
ArchangelGabriel said:-well if im extremly stupid for not making assumptions then i guess i would rather better spiritually correct then worldly intelligent
ArchangelGabriel said:-whats with this obsession with people who think God made the earth look old
when did i ever imply that at all in any way
ArchangelGabriel said:2. im sorry i totally disagree with that and do not see how its technically, spiritually, or sceintifically correct
wel im not going to harp on the see there not the same thing becasue im sure your tired of that butdunkel said:Apes and humans share something like 98% of their DNA. Yes, that means exactly what you think it means...we are not that far removed from our Chimpanzee brothers. That 2% difference (or whatever the actual number is, I can't recall at the moment) is a BIG difference, yes, but not as big as you would assume. When you have apes displaying "human" skills such as using tools, language, etc, you should realize we're not as different as you'd like to think.
I do think we're pretty far removed from monkeys, though, lol.
well lets pretend that im only in 9th grade biology for a sec _couldyou give me the condensd clip notes or somethingCronic said:There are sciences like comparative anatomy and taxonomy that deal directly with those questions.
Proverbs 3:5If you choose not to use your reason and intellect, then you are throwing away two of the greatest gifts that God has given you. Are you saying these gifts from God are somehow faulty or not worthy of your use? Perhaps you feel that they are not necessary, but then why would God give us something we didn't need?
1) whats a billion years to Gods eternityThe Earth DOES look old. It looks like it's been around for billions of years. The problem with creationism is to explain why everything looks so dang old if it was only created 6000 years ago, as creationists claim. The argument goes that if Earth looks old, it is NOT because it actually IS old, but because God must have made it that way for whatever reason. You may not have said it, but it is a common argument used by creationists. Out of curiosity, why do you believe that the Earth looks older than 6000 years (give or take)?
(well like the rain but ill just leave taht out for irelevenc purposes)Your claim, if I am reading you correctly, is that a majority of people believing something does not make it necessarily correct, just because the majority of people believe it. I agree. However, when you have a majority of people that have all come to the same conclusion idependently and many, many times over, it does lend that particular argument a little bit of credibility. It doesn't prove it, no, but it does indicate that there is something there worth looking at. If you're watching TV and see 4 weathermen say it's going to rain tomorrow and 1 that doesn't, are you going to pack your umbrella or not? After all, it's entirely possible that those 4 that predicted rain are wrong...but since they all came to the same conclusion independently, even if they were using the same data, doesn't it at least show that they might be on to something
oh kool a virtual mirrorGraceInHim said:
And here is Lucy's Relative
dunkel said:The Earth DOES look old. It looks like it's been around for billions of years. The problem with creationism is to explain why everything looks so dang old if it was only created 6000 years ago, as creationists claim. The argument goes that if Earth looks old, it is NOT because it actually IS old, but because God must have made it that way for whatever reason. You may not have said it, but it is a common argument used by creationists. Out of curiosity, why do you believe that the Earth looks older than 6000 years (give or take)?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?