Debate....

[Arikay]

So you claim to have evidence for creation and you claim that the evidence for evolution is false, yet you refuse to show us evidence to back any of these claims up.

Sorry, but isnt that getting close to the whole false witness thing.
Dont christians want to stay away from bearing false witness?

Today at 02:09 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #40

WHOA, gents.

I am sorry I gave you the impression I am trying to change YOUR point of veiw.
All I care about is making sure that any Christian who wanders in here can see that your evidence is not perfect and has been shown untrustworthy.

I could not possibly care less about how You feel about my fitting the evidence into my young earth.
You have no chance of changing my mind as I have none of convincing you.

This is not about your getting me to see your light.

I know of evolutions fraudulent material and exhibits out there posing as ''science''.

I have no need to convince anyone but that one person who hasnt fallen completey for your lie yet.

 

[JohnR7]

27th March 2003 at 11:54 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #9

I believe in a 6-24 hour day creation.

Wow, a real 6000 year old earther! Can you tell me where all the oil came from that we pour into our tanks to keep our cars running and people use to heat their homes?

 

[Jon]

Wow, a real 6000 year old earther! Can you tell me where all the oil came from that we pour into our tanks to keep our cars running and people use to heat their homes?

I understood that oil can be formed in a few thousand years.

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 12:24 AM Tenek said this in Post #16

Something tells me that this debate is about as useful as trying to convert the Pope

No one is here to convert anyone. We are only here to strength what we already believe. People show up on this board with some of the sloppiest stuff trying to build a theory on it. They do not get away with it here. If you say writting began X number of years ago, then you better be prepared to show us just exactly what the earliest example you have of writting is.

No one gets away with sloppy generalities on this board.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 05:09 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #40

All I care about is making sure that any Christian who wanders in here can see that your evidence is not perfect and has been shown untrustworthy.

I don't see anyone claiming that science is "perfect". To say that the evidence shown is "untrustworthy" is dishonest, however. You have not demonstrated any of the counter arguments to be "untrustworthy".

I know of evolutions fraudulent material and exhibits out there posing as ''science''.

I have no need to convince anyone but that one person who hasnt fallen completey for your lie yet.

You keep making claims with nothing to back them up. It has been shown that the young earth view is not possible if you looked at the evidence and other threads posted here. To simply hand-wave them away and calling them "fraudulent material" is pointless if you have no substance to back up your statement.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 05:37 PM Jon said this in Post #43


I understood that oil can be formed in a few thousand years.

20 million barrels a day? I beleive in God's miracle supply, but I also know that even God needs something to work with. Can you show how all of that oil could have been formed in a few thousand years? Right now I am being told that oil comes from something that was organic, alive at one time.

 

[notto]

Today at 04:09 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #40


I know of evolutions fraudulent material and exhibits out there posing as ''science''.

I have no need to convince anyone but that one person who hasnt fallen completey for your lie yet.

Wouldn't it help these people if you actually showed them were to find the refutation of this fradulent material that you speak of? Why don't you bring it out into the light so that they can see it for themselves and let them look at it critically?

 

[Arikay]

It is currently believed that much of our oil supply comes from Plankton and other small organisms. It takes an organic proccess (not just pressure, like from a flood) to change these dead organisms into oil.

Today at 02:37 PM Jon said this in Post #43


I understood that oil can be formed in a few thousand years.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 05:25 PM Arikay said this in Post #41

So you claim to have evidence for creation and you claim that the evidence for evolution is false, yet you refuse to show us evidence to back any of these claims up.

Sorry, but isnt that getting close to the whole false witness thing.
Dont christians want to stay away from bearing false witness?

First of all, get out of your secular cave and read a book or two.

Secondly, I would be bearing false witness if I were knowingly telling a lie.

I am not interested in presenting anything to evolutionists.

Regardless of what is shown to you, you dismiss it.

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 12:08 AM SBfaithful said this in Post #13

Macroevolution (or rather, the formation of new species) has been observed

You can cross a horse and a donkey and get a mule, a sterile hybrid, but that is not really evidence. If it is evidence for anything it's that there is not such thing as macroevolution.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 05:37 PM Jon said this in Post #43


I understood that oil can be formed in a few thousand years.

I was hoping I wasnt the only one in here.
I was getting kind of lonely.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 05:49 PM notto said this in Post #47




Wouldn't it help these people if you actually showed them were to find the refutation of this fradulent material that you speak of? Why don't you bring it out into the light so that they can see it for themselves and let them look at it critically?

If you look around the forum, I already gave one source straight from the horses mouth, and that was dismissed immedialetly.
So why bother with it trying to show evolutionists anything anymore.
I figure you all have seen the stuff anyway and rationalized it away.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 05:53 PM Arikay said this in Post #48

It is currently believed that much of our oil supply comes from Plankton and other small organisms. It takes an organic proccess (not just pressure, like from a flood) to change these dead organisms into oil.

I am not really so concerned with the process. Even if you could convert a plant into oil in a short period of time. I am concerned with the amount of organisms it would take to produce 20 million barrels of oil a day.

How long would it take to produce enough organic life to convert into that much oil.




 

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:17 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #51


I was hoping I wasnt the only one in here.
I was getting kind of lonely.

So you believe that the 20 million gallons of oil that we consume every day in this country was formed in a few thousand years? 1700 years to be exact?

What about in Genesis where the Bible uses the word: "replenish". Does not the use of that word suggest that there was some sort of pre existance before Adam and Eve, that God said to replenish the earth?

 

[Arikay]

Unfortunatly I havent gotten that information yet, but ive been looking around for it.

One thing thats interesting is that its estimated that we have only found 10% of all the oil reserves in the world.
Some of the oil reserves might never get tapped, because of new technologies coming along (but this is all besides the point).

Another thing thats interesting is that its believed that many of the larger animals and plants became coal instead of oil.

Today at 04:13 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #53



I am not really so concerned with the process. Even if you could convert a plant into oil in a short period of time. I am concerned with the amount of organisms it would take to produce 20 million barrels of oil a day.

How long would it take to produce enough organic life to convert into that much oil.




 

 

[Jon]

If Dr. Dino is correct then there would have been alot more vegitation before the flood, enough to account for all the oil in the world....

 

[Arikay]

dont trust Dr. Dino. Ironically, he slips up and admits evolution in one of his FAQs.

The problem is that the proccess to make oil requires more than just high pressure. So the flood Couldnt have turned the vegitation into oil.

Today at 05:49 PM Jon said this in Post #56

If Dr. Dino is correct then there would have been alot more vegitation before the flood, enough to account for all the oil in the world....

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:49 PM Jon said this in Post #56

If Dr. Dino is correct then there would have been alot more vegitation before the flood, enough to account for all the oil in the world....

This is based on the theory that: "Only about 3% of the earth today is habitable for man. The rest is under water, ice, deserts, mountains, etc. If the earth before the flood were for example, 70% habitable, it could have supported a huge population."

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=10

At least he makes an attempt at trying to explain it.

 

[notto]

Today at 05:21 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #52



If you look around the forum, I already gave one source straight from the horses mouth, and that was dismissed immedialetly.
So why bother with it trying to show evolutionists anything anymore.
I figure you all have seen the stuff anyway and rationalized it away.

Dismissing isn't the same as refuting. Are you sure your source wasn't refuted?

Very few here who are intersted in science will simply dismiss a source. Often we will look at it critically and discuss information that may or may not refute it. We will bring to light other sources that contradict it, often sources that are backed up by data, research, and sources compiled by those who are the experts in their field. These sources will often falsify the claims of YEC which is what is important in a scientific discussion. It doesn't matter what data or evidence supports your position, you need to make sure their isn't evidence that falsifies it. Have you presented any sources that show falsification of a young earth or evolution? Plenty have been shown that falsify a young earth.

On the other hand, there are some YEC's here who openly admit that they dismiss (instead of refute or critique) any evidence that is contrary to their young earth ideas. This is not a scientific approach. If anything, this tactic shows just how unscientific YEC arguments are.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 10:35 PM notto said this in Post #59

Very few here who are intersted in science will simply dismiss a source.

Except for Kent Hovind.

(But considering how many times his "science" has been refuted, both here and at other sources, it's little wonder he has zero credibility here.)