Debate....

[Humanista]

It doesn't seem as though you really want to debate. It appears you want a pulpit from which to denounce evolution without presenting anything to back up your assertions.

Debates are a back and forth discussion of a taopic, yet you have already announced you have no intention of addressing issues.

Don't expect much interest from others here.

 

[L'Anatra]

Today at 12:09 AM Humanista said this in Post #61

It doesn't seem as though you really want to debate. It appears you want a pulpit from which to denounce evolution without presenting anything to back up your assertions.

Debates are a back and forth discussion of a taopic, yet you have already announced you have no intention of addressing issues.

Don't expect much interest from others here.

I agree; how can there be any discussion when no issues are brought up to address?

The only issue I've seen in this thread is people putting words in others' mouths, particulary in this post:

Yesterday at 06:16 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #49

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.

Follower of Christ, you have shown us nothing to refute, let alone dismiss. You've already admitted to the hypocrisy that you dismiss at least some evidence regarding the theory of evolution or some other field of science. At the same time, you're willing to insult our intelligence (and certainly your own) by stating from your soapbox that the "evidence" for evolution is untrustworthy before even looking at and for it! You should expect people to react harshly when they're treated that way.

Also, I'm sure all of us would be very interested if there really were valid "material and exhibits" falsifying evolution or any other theory that presumes our Earth and universe have an age much greater than 6,000 years. How could one not be?

EDIT: quote formatting...

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 12:39 AM L'Anatra said this in Post #62


I agree; how can there be any discussion when no issues are brought up to address?

The only issue I've seen in this thread is people putting words in others' mouths, particulary in this post:


Follower of Christ, you have shown us nothing to refute, let alone dismiss. You've already admitted to the hypocrisy that you dismiss at least some evidence regarding the theory of evolution or some other field of science. At the same time, you're willing to insult our intelligence (and certainly your own) by stating from your soapbox that the "evidence" for evolution is untrustworthy before even looking at and for it! You should expect people to react harshly when they're treated that way.

Also, I'm sure all of us would be very interested if there really were valid "material and exhibits" falsifying evolution or any other theory that presumes our Earth and universe have an age much greater than 6,000 years. How could one not be?

EDIT: quote formatting...

At what point did I say I didnt look at the evidence.
You assume too much because you havent read the entirety of my posts.

My hypocrisy was in ever believing in evolution to begin with.
I only hope that in those years, none came to buy that lie because of my words.

There is nothing to refute. YOUR evidence fits nicley into my young earth faith for the most part. That which doesnt, isnt that big of a deal for me.

I have looked very carefully at the majority of the evidence (probably missed some tho) and it has left me believing my biblical account even more than before.
You ''evidence'' is, in a way, what pushed me into believing in a young earth.

THATS IRONY.

Fraudulent claims and evidence by any evolutionist would not prove Young Earth. I dont claim that they do.
As far as I know, there would be no separate evidence for a young earth.

Its not a your proof VS. mine.
Its a matter of how that proof is interpreted and whether or not we accept dating methods as reliable(I do not, after seeing both sides of the issue).

It doesnt take a brain surgeon to do a web search to look for fraud, it just a few correctly spelled words and clicking the search button.
It does however take a desire to know truth.

I expect people to react harshly anytime their faiths are questioned. Its in our nature to want to be right.
As for me I believe God is true, whether or not I am is irrelevant as I am nothing.

 

[Arikay]

The irony is that you talk about "proof" and "evidence" Yet you refuse to give it.

Hmmmm.

 

[L'Anatra]

Today at 01:01 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #63
At what point did I say I didnt look at the evidence.
You assume too much because you havent read the entirety of my posts.

I'd like to apologize for breaking up your post in this manner, but it's the only way I can address your points. In addition, it appears I've been a tad hypocritical myself here regarding "putting words in someone's mouth..."

Anyway,

continuing Follower of Christ's post...
My hypocrisy was in ever believing in evolution to begin with.
I only hope that in those years, none came to buy that lie because of my words.

There is nothing to refute. YOUR evidence fits nicley into my young earth faith for the most part. That which doesnt, isnt that big of a deal for me.

Good for you. As I said, though, you are still dismissing evidence simply because you consider it unbelievable.

continuing Follower of Christ's post...
I have looked very carefully at the majority of the evidence (probably missed some tho) and it has left me believing my biblical account even more than before.
You ''evidence'' is, in a way, what pushed me into believing in a young earth.

THATS IRONY.

It certainly is.

continuing Follower of Christ's post...
Fraudulent claims and evidence by any evolutionist would not prove Young Earth. I dont claim that they do.
As far as I know, there would be no separate evidence for a young earth.

Its not a your proof VS. mine.
Its a matter of how that proof is interpreted and whether or not we accept dating methods as reliable(I do not, after seeing both sides of the issue).

No, there would not be separate evidence for anything. We don't live in two separate worlds. Either way, science tends to work the other way around. Every bit of applicable evidence that has withstood scrutiny has shown the young earth premise to be an outright falsehood. You've boiled virtually the entire argument down to dating methods. If you'd tell us how the dating methods are so unreliable, it may help bolster your argument.

continuing Follower of Christ's post...
It doesnt take a brain surgeon to do a web search to look for fraud, it just a few correctly spelled words and clicking the search button.
It does however take a desire to know truth.

You do realize it's possible that your supposed "frauds" have been refuted, do you not? Most of the internet isn't exactly "trustworthy". That's why brain surgeons don't tend to do web searches in order to educate themselves in medicine. (Not to say that the internet isn't useful...)

continuing Follower of Christ's post...
I expect people to react harshly anytime their faiths are questioned. Its in our nature to want to be right.

I agree with you here. However, since there is a great amount of evidence for scientific theories such as evolution or the big bang (as it were), I do not accept them by simple faith. If I did, I might as well say gravity doesn't exist or the Earth is flat. My point is: what do any of us really know about anything? how much do we accept based on faith alone?

In addition, it's certainly possible for your understanding (and mine) of these theories to be flawed.

continuing Follower of Christ's post...
As for me I believe God is true, whether or not I am is irrelevant as I am nothing.

I did not say God isn't true. You must stop equating evolutionism to atheism.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:09 AM Arikay said this in Post #64

The irony is that you talk about "proof" and "evidence" Yet you refuse to give it.

Hmmmm.

Jeez, I dont know at what point I am allowed to use words like ''dense'' in here but....

THERE PROBABLY IS NO SEPARATE EVIDENCE.
YOUR EVIDENCE FITS VERY NICELY INTO MY YOUNG EARTH.
ITS ALL IN HOW ITS INTERPRETED.

I wasnt yelling, merely using all caps to see if it would help you understand this time.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Today at 03:33 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #66




Jeez, I dont know at what point I am allowed to use words like ''dense'' in here but....

THERE PROBABLY IS NO SEPARATE EVIDENCE.
YOUR EVIDENCE FITS VERY NICELY INTO MY YOUNG EARTH.
ITS ALL IN HOW ITS INTERPRETED.

I wasnt yelling, merely using all caps to see if it would help you understand this time.

Oh, we understand alright. What you don't understand is that it is not that there is no separate evidence, there is no evidence at all, that fits nicely into your young earth time frame.  None.  The only young earth intrepretation that makes any sense in light of the massive evidence for an old earth and against a worldwide flood is the Omphalos hypothesis that says that God created the world to look old and that has some severe philosophical problems. If the world were young and there had been a worldwide flood YECs should have some rational explanations for the world's geology, geochemistry, palenotology, biogeography, biodiversity and archeology, to name a few. These sciences and other provide overwhelming evidence that the earth is far older than 10,000 years and falsify the worldwide flood many times over.  All creationists attempts to explain them fall apart totally on analysis. The scientific sounding nonsense provided by Answers in Genesis, ICR and on the Grossly misnamed TrueOrigin archive may be sufficient to convince people who want to believe and are not expert in the science involved but their bogus "interpretations" fall apart totally when examined by those who know some science.

As Mechanical Bliss pointed out these threads have unanswered and unaswerable refutation of young earth creationism and these are present only a small fraction of evidence that refutes YEC.

my thread on twelve features of the target=_blank>Grand Canyon that cannot exist in a Young Earth, flood geology scanario


notto's thread on the target=_blank>Hawaiian Island Chain

ardipithecus' thread on target=_blank>angular unconformities

my thread on target=_blank>varve deposits

and arikay's thread on the target=_blank>mathematical problems with the flood model

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 11:03 AM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #67




Oh, we understand alright. What you don't understand is that it is not that there is no separate evidence, there is no evidence at all, that fits nicely into your young earth time frame.  None.  The only young earth intrepretation that makes any sense in light of the massive evidence for an old earth and against a worldwide flood is the Omphalos hypothesis that says that God created the world to look old and that has some severe philosophical problems. If the world were young and there had been a worldwide flood YECs should have some rational explanations for the world's geology, geochemistry, palenotology, biogeography, biodiversity and archeology, to name a few. These sciences and other provide overwhelming evidence that the earth is far older than 10,000 years and falsify the worldwide flood many times over.  All creationists attempts to explain them fall apart totally on analysis. The scientific sounding nonsense provided by Answers in Genesis, ICR and on the Grossly misnamed TrueOrigin archive may be sufficient to convince people who want to believe and are not expert in the science involved but their bogus "interpretations" fall apart totally when examined by those who know some science.

As Mechanical Bliss pointed out these threads have unanswered and unaswerable refutation of young earth creationism and these are present only a small fraction of evidence that refutes YEC.




The Frumious Bandersnatch

This is really starting to make my head hurt.

They do have rational explainations that YOU ignore and call pseudo-science because you cant deal with it emotionally.

OF COURSE our interpretations fall apart when ''examined'' by your secular scientists who dont want to be wrong.


I am sorry but being unrefuted means exactly squat.

Far too many times has science put forth their religion only to have some new data come along and wipe out their theory.

Just about the time you all start yelling ''FACT'', someone will bring up some other ''evidence'' that will undermine the whole circus.

 

[lucaspa]

28th March 2003 at 07:44 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #26


DO YOU think God follows mans classifications?

What a duck.  FoC, "species" is Latin for "kind".  Linneaus (a creationist) was, in his classification scheme, seeking to classify as God did.

In Genesis 1, the text says repeatedly that kinds are to "breed after their own kind".  Compare that to the definition of species I gave you.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:19 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #68


They do have rational explainations that YOU ignore and call pseudo-science because you cant deal with it emotionally.

OF COURSE our interpretations fall apart when ''examined'' by your secular scientists who dont want to be wrong.


I am sorry but being unrefuted means exactly squat.

Far too many times has science put forth their religion only to have some new data come along and wipe out their theory.

Just about the time you all start yelling ''FACT'', someone will bring up some other ''evidence'' that will undermine the whole circus.

You are obviously equating science with atheism.  Now, for both you and Frumious:

SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM.  EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM.

The supposed "secular" scientists who refuted YEC in the period 1750 - 1830 were, to a man (no women in science at that time) theists or deists.  Many of them, like Adam Sedgwick, Whewell, and Buckland, were ministers.  The history is well documented in Gillespie's Genesis and Geology and Davis A. Young's The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence.  Young is both a geologist and an evangelical Christian.  So your complaint about "secular" scientists is refuted.

All professional geologists know of the evidence that refutes a young earth and a global Flood.  Glenn Morton's website, posted by Jon, makes that very clear.

Science isn't a religion.  If you want to fight against atheism, then do so.  Atheism has vulnerabilities, but you are never going to find them this way.  All you are going to do is destroy Christianity.

BTW, from Young's book:
I went on to criticize the flood geology of Whitcomb and Morris, introducing some still valid geological arguments that had not previously appeared in discussions of the deluge.
1. I argued that known rates of heat flow from bodies of crystallizing magma pose problems for those who contend that all fossil-bearing rocks were laid down during the single year of the biblical flood. On the New Jersey side of the Hudson River opposite Manhattan, there is a geological formation known as the Palisades sill, a thick sheet of rock of igneous origin that intruded into red sandstones and shales, Flood geologists of the Whitcomb-Morris school hold that the sand-stones and shales were laid down during the course of the flood, and hence they would logically have to assert that the magma was injected into this material during the course of the flood, cooled, hardened, tilted, and eroded before the other flood sediments settled atop it. But this would not have been possible. We know on the basis of heat flow considerations and the thickness of the sill that it would have taken several hundred years to cool and crystallize in the way it now appears. Indeed, many other much larger igneous rock bodies would have re-quired thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to lose their heat in order to crystallize. Flood geologists have made little attempt to refute this line of evidence.
2.  Radiometric dating of igneous formations of the sort men-tioned above - formations that according to the Whitcomb-Morris theory must have been produced within the space of a single year -suggest that they are in fact millions of years old. These figures are consistent with ages predicted on the basis of stratigraphical relation-ships with the intruded rocks. Similar examples can be multiplied many times over
3. The phenomena of metamorphism also pose problems for flood geology. In some localities, fossils are found in rocks that also bear evidence of having undergone significant changes (metamorphism) as a result of having been exposed to very high temperatures and pressures. The problem for flood geologists is to show how a sedimen-tary rock, which they contend was formed at the surface of the earth during the course of the flood, could have been buried and heated fast enough to metamorphose. Both heat flow theory and known rates of chemical reactions indicate that such rocks could not possibly have undergone the observed metamorphism within a single year
4. A wealth of evidence associated with modern discoveries about continental drift and sea floor spreading indicate that various kinds of rocks - including varieties that the flood geologists maintain were formed during the course of the flood - must have been formed both before and after the separation of continents. If the flood geologists are right, this would imply that the continents must have been drifting apart substantially during the course of the flood. But thousands of miles of continental drift within the space of a few months is completely inconsistent with any known rates of drift.
I concluded the book with a look at Scripture, arguing that the biblical data (Gen. 2 in particular) suggest that pre-flood geography was fundamentally the same as post-flood geography which precludes the possibility of a global deluge involving a wholesale reorganization of terrestrial surface features. I also affirmed my belief that the biblical flood was in fact a historical event and not merely myth or legend. It was my intent to show how Christians could endorse the idea of a historical flood without having to commit themselves to a flood geology theory that is thoroughly in conflict with the data of creation. Davis A Young, The Biblical Flood, Pp 273-274.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

They do have rational explainations that YOU ignore and call pseudo-science because you cant deal with it emotionally.

Calling yong earth creationim pseudo-science is being unfair to pseudo-science. It is so far from reality that it doesn't even make it to the level of pseudo-science. I don't ignore creationist explanations and neither do many of the others who post here. We study them in detail. We say thay are irrational because they are irrational. Do you have rational explanations of the 180 unique species of marsupial mammals in Australia or the existence of hundreds of trillions of tons of salt in supposed flood deposits or the stratification of the fossil record or any of the things in the threads that have been pointed out to you? If so I would love to hear them but I won't hold my breath.

OF COURSE our interpretations fall apart when ''examined'' by your secular scientists who dont want to be wrong.

They fall apart when examined by anyone who knows the science involved and is capable of rational thought.  Religion has nothing to do with it. There are old earth creationists who realize the YEC is bunk and maybe you should check out the Affiliation of Christian Geologists.

http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/

I am sorry but being unrefuted means exactly squat.

Far too many times has science put forth their religion only to have some new data come along and wipe out their theory.

It may give you comfort to think that science is religion but it isn't. I have been around long enough to remember how this claim came about. When YEC failed to get their religion declared science in a couple of well-know court cases they deliberately began spreading the lie that science is a religion. 

It was Christian geologists in the late 18th and early 19th century who realized that the earth was old and that there had never been a worldwide flood. They were scientists and so they modified their theories to fit the facts. Modern YECs try to modify the facts to fit their mythology. It doesn't work.

Just about the time you all start yelling ''FACT'', someone will bring up some other ''evidence'' that will undermine the whole circus.

You are the one who is yelling. I guess you hope that if you yell loud enough and long it enough it will make all the multitude of refutations of young earth  creationism go away. It won't.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:03 AM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #67

Oh, we understand alright. What you don't understand is that it is not that there is no separate evidence, there is no evidence at all, that fits nicely into your young earth time frame.  None.  ... These sciences and other provide overwhelming evidence that the earth is far older than 10,000 years and falsify the worldwide flood many times over.  All creationists attempts to explain them fall apart totally on analysis. ...
As Mechanical Bliss pointed out these threads have unanswered and unaswerable refutation of young earth creationism and these are present only a small fraction of evidence that refutes YEC.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Let me sidetrack you into the realm of philosophy of science.  You have two different philosophies of science going here, one valid, the other not valid.

The invalid is in the first two sentences.  Yes, there is evidence that did/does fit into Flood Geology.  However, evidence for a theory is not definitive because you can find evidence for any theory if that is what you are looking for.  So, the fossils at Dinosaur National Monument are evidence "for" a Flood. 

What you mean to say is: "evidence that cannot be explained by any other hypothesis".  The fossils at DNM can also be explained by a local flood, not a global one.

Instead of getting into arguments about whether there is evidence "for" YEC, concentrate on the evidence that falsifies YEC.  While theories cannot, strictly speaking, be definitively proven, they can be definitively shown to be false (Popper). And that is how science works: by falsifying theories.

Creationism, particularly YEC, is a falsified scientific theory.  Forget the challenge to FoC and other YECers of evidence "for".  Just post the evidence that falsifies YEC.

BTW, that way you avoid the whole theism vs atheism aspect that underlies FoC's position.  You are not rejecting YEC because of any beliefs, but treating it exactly the same as any other scientific theory and evaluating it by the data.

BTW, the Oomphalos argument can't be disproven by science.  It is rejected on theological grounds because it turns God into a liar.  See Kinglsey's letter to Gosse.

 

[lucaspa]

28th March 2003 at 08:31 PM webboffin said this in Post #28

Has anyone really defined what God is?

Maybe something that is pure energy that has unlimited knowledge and ultimate wisdom who can create by manipulating energy and matter to what ever he desires.

No.  However, a precise definition is not always necessary.  I think this definition has some serious problems. 

However, since "kind" is so important to creationism the theory, we need to have some idea what "kind" is. 

 

[lucaspa]

28th March 2003 at 10:07 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #33


This is one of the larger issues with evolutionist.

''Kind'' is the word the bible uses to separate different types of animals.
Dogs, cats, birds, elephants, etc.

FoC, this doesn't help us. Because creationism uses "kind" as the boundary past which changes will not go.  If that is the case, there should be very sharp delineations between "kinds" and never, never have animals with characteristics of two different kinds.

Do you agree or disagree with Duane Gish's definition of kinds (and if you don't know, Gish is a YEC and author of The Fossils Say NO!)  So I've picked a creationist with impeccable credentials as a creationist.

"In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants which have been derived from a single stock.  We have cited some examples of varieties which we believe should be included within a single basic kind.  We cannot always be sure, however, what constitutes a basic kind. The division into kinds is easier the more the divergence observed.  It is obvious, for example, that among invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters, and bees are all different kinds.  Among the vertebrates, the fishes amphibians reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously different basic kinds.  Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds.  Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each.

Within the mammalian class, duck-billed playtpuses, opossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to different basic kinds.  Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind.

When we attempt to make fine divisions within groups of plants and animals where distinguishing features are subtle, there is a possibility of error.  Many taxonomic distinctions established by man are uncertain and must remain tentative.

Let us now return to our discussion of evolution.  According to the theory of evolution, not only have the minor variations within kinds arisen through natural processes, but the basic kinds themselves have arisen from fundamentally different ancestral forms.  Creationists do not deny the former, that is, the origin of variations within kinds, but they do deny the latter, that is, the evolutionary origin of basically different types of plants and animals from common ancestors."  Duane T. Gish, The Fossils Say NO!, 1973, pp 34-35.




 

 

[Jon]

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.

Yes, it dose require more than just high pressure to make oil.
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=5

The flood provids the pressure.
The fountains of the deep provids the heat.

Genesis 7
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.



You shouldn't trust Dr. Dino, however you can look at what he says and see if it could work.

Dr. Dino dosn't admit that the earth is millions of years or that we evoulved from apes, however he dose admit and belive that animals can change.

eg. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=22

 

[lucaspa]

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


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

There is debate on that one.  The methodology of the creationists was never subjected to peer review.

However, let's examine some deductions from that.  Let's assume it is true.  Now, how many gallons of plant material does it take to make a gallon of oil?  I don't know precisely but it is over 100.  Now, a barrel of oil is 55 gallons and we are pumping about 10 million barrels a day. That's 5500 million gallons a day.  At a 100:1 ratio, that's 550 billion gallons of plant material. A day. 

Now, how much biomass is there on the entire planet?  Not that much. Yet YEC says that all the oil formed came from the biomass on the planet on the day of the Flood.  Let's be generous and say we are allowed to use the biomass for the previous thousand years.

Even if all the earth were covered in the densest rainforest, there is no way to have enough biomass in a thousand years to even account for a year's oil production.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The invalid is in the first two sentences. Yes, there is evidence that did/does fit into Flood Geology. However, evidence for a theory is not definitive because you can find evidence for any theory if that is what you are looking for. So, the fossils at Dinosaur National Monument are evidence "for" a Flood.

OK, I see what you mean. The point is that there is no evidence that can only be explained by a worldwide flood and as you say there are multiple falsifications of the flood as a worldwide event. There is no evidence that can only be explained by a young earth and a large amount of evidence that can only be explained by an old earth. So fitting a little bit of evidence into a flood means nothing. Of course there have been scads of local floods in the history of the earth but no worldwide flood at least in the last few hundred million years.  Often creationists point to some feature of the world's geology and by looking at it in isolation, try to make it make it seem to be evidence for a worldwide flood. I think this has been done with your example.  What they can't do is explain the totallity of the world's geology at all and many of their claims directly contradict each other.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:09 PM Jon said this in Post #75


Yes, it dose require more than just high pressure to make oil.
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=5

The flood provids the pressure.
The fountains of the deep provids the heat.

Genesis 7
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Dr. Dino dosn't admit that the earth is millions of years or that we evoulved from apes, however he dose admit and belive that animals can change.

eg. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=22

Jon, how do you get "heat" from that passage of Genesis? It's water.  Even if it were hot (which the text does not say), the rain would cool it, right?

So Dr. Dino also admits evolution.  Remember, the title of the book was On the Origin of Species.  If Hovind is admitting that new species can form, he is admitting evolution. After all, isn't "original dog kind" the same as "common ancestor"?

Go up and read Gish's definition of "kind".  Do you agree or disagree. And why for each.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:17 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #77



OK, I see what you mean. The point is that there is no evidence that can only be explained by a worldwide flood and as you say there are multiple falsifications of the flood as a worldwide event. There is no evidence that can only be explained by a young earth and a large amount of evidence that can only be explained by an old earth. So fitting a little bit of evidence into a flood means nothing.

Right. Fitting evidence into a flood means nothing because of the evidence that falsifies a flood.

So stop asking for evidence "for" a Flood.  It's a silly request and doesn't ask for what you want: evidence that can be explained only by a worldwide Flood.

Instead, do science and concentrate on testing the theory in an attempt to falsify it.  As you noted, both young earth and worldwide Flood are theories that have been falsified.  By the same methods that falsified flat earth, geocentrism, aether, proteins as hereditary material, etc. 

You can't turn a falsified theory into a valid one because the data that falsified it is always there.

Here, look directly at what Popper wrote about theories:

"1.  It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory -- if we look for confirmations.
2.  Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions.
3.  Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition:  it forbids certain things to happen.  The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4.  Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it.
5.  Confirming evidence should not count *except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory:*  and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.  "

Notice #1. That is what creartionists are doing -- only looking for verification. But they don't do #4.

 

[lithium.]

27th March 2003 at 03:39 PM Jon said this in Post #1

We are going to have a debate (hopefully).

Why?

Because I want to see one in action

 

The debate is:

Evoultion vs. Creationism

 

BEFORE YOU POST tell everyone what you belive (eg. I belive that God Created the earth in 6 24h days and that the earth is 6000 years old.)

Well I don't believe in Evolution; I accept it as a scientific theory. The reason I don't accept Creationism is because it has been falsified. Remember "creationism", and creation is two different thangs. Creation has no evidence backing it up (other than the bible saying it happened).