New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[HitchSlap]

Really?

Really. You're the victim of a hoax.

 

[HitchSlap]

Faith is nothing like what you claim.

Faith is the reason you give when you don't have good reasons.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no evidence.

Ya ... that kinda vacuums, doesn't it?

The Exodus story is fictitious, and nobody believes this story as factual history with the exception of religious adherents.

Like Colin Humphreys?

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith is the reason you give when you don't have good reasons.

Faith is believing something, even when science says otherwise.

 

[freezerman2000]

First off, LastSeven, I don't know why you feel that a few bones in the Red Sea proves that Pharaoh's forces all died there. People drown. It happens a lot. It's no big stretch of the imagination to say that, even if the Exodus story were true, it wasn't the first time someone died in that particular body of water, nor was it the last.

Also, about that picture of the wheel - here's an interesting video that deals with it.

Biblical Archaeology VI - YouTube

To sum up, archaeological pictures typically are taken with markers that give you some indication of how big they are. It's more than a little telling that this picture is missing such a marker. There are several other problems with it, and I have to wonder why whomever took this picture didn't take it out of the water for closer inspection.

At such a shallow depth,the wheel would have been long gone..decayed.

 

[HitchSlap]

Faith is believing something, even when science says otherwise.

That would be foolish.

 

[keith99]

Yes, I agree, he did have some fallacious beliefs. It is his science that we are discussing, not his flaws.

And to assume that creation is true is the opposite of science. Science makes no assumptions ahead of time as to what is true or not, it only follows the evidence. Even Newtons's science shows that our solar system is billions of years old. and yet YEC's deny this. Therefore they deny Newton's physics.

One problem is people keep moving the goalposts.

One definition of creationism is that God created it all. It makes little to no assumptions of the steps that occurred.

Another, the one most people use is the ones who through a poor reading so scripture propose God did it in 6 days that occurred about 6000 years ago.

Rather large difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am no scientist but have read enough to know that these theories have huge holes in them. If you really cared to know you could spend a few weeks doing your own research.

Carbon dating assumes that the carbon that has been entering the earth's atmosphere has been doing so at a consistent rate. This is a huge assumption. It also assumes that the ratio between C12 and C14 has always been a constant. Without knowing the correct ratio, you can not know the correct age. Some scientists have even referred to the state of carbon dating as a crisis due to its unreliability and inaccuracy.

That is simply not the case. C14 can only be used for very very recent dates anyway. We have tree ring data that goes back over 12,000 years alone that allows us to calibrate C14. And C14 dating is never used for evolution. It only goes back about 60,000 years.If you are conflating C14 dating with radiometric dating then frankly you do not know anywhere near enough about this subject to be commenting on it.

The founder of carbon dating himself even believed it would take no more than 30,000 years for the atmosphere on earth to reach equilibrium. Yet it still has not reached that state, which means the atmosphere can not be more than 30,000 years old.

No,just no. You have made two fatal flaws. The developer of C14 was talking about a start from zero C14 assuming a steady state. There has been some variation, but no insane variation in C14 dating back to 12,000 years.

For evolution, the onus is on the evolutionists to prove their theory correct which they have yet to do. The simple lack of "the missing link" should be enough to make you question evolution.

You are correct about the onus being on evolutionists. You are incorrect about them not providing sufficient evidence to "prove" the theory. And what "missing link"? That was an old term used by skeptics. We have long since filled in most of man's evolution from other apes.

No creature has ever turned into anything new. Even the extremely fast life of the fruit fly has never yielded any evidence of evolution. Though there may be variations in creatures they always remain the same creature. A fish does not turn into a reptile. It's physically impossible. The odds of all the necessary molecules mutating at the same time to create legs are incredible and statistically impossible even over billions of years. It just wouldn't happen.

Again, just no. Wrong. Major . We have observed this evolution in the fossil record. By your wording it is clear that you have no clue about how evolution works. As I have told many a creationist, you cannot debunk a theory that you do not understand.

The theory of natural selection is supposed to explain "survivability" traits, yet humans have the ability to be artistic and musical and thoughtful for no apparent useful reason. Everything about the creatures on earth screams intelligent design, but I guess that's too obvious for the "scientists".

That is right. Because it can be demonstrated how all of those traits aid in natural selection.

I don't even want to get started on global warming. There's just not enough information. And the fact that it's such a hugely political issue makes it incredibly susceptible to tampering, as we've seen with climategate and other UN sanctioned "studies". Personally I doubt that man made CO2 could affect the planet in such a drastic way that some people are predicting.

That is simple an argument form incredulity again. Climategate was nothing. It was not a scandal. It was a lot of noise by deniers and that is all.

The Greenhouse effect has been accepted as settled science for over 100 years. Do you seriously think that doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere would have no effect? I used to be skeptical about AGW too, I would debate against it on websites, but like a good skeptic I did the right thing. I studied the problem. The more I studied it the more I found that the AGW crowd has the facts on their side.

Perhaps you should learn how to be a good skeptic. A good skeptic does not go only to the sites that feed your skepticism. You also need to go to websites that support the opposition.

I have no fear of articles in AiG or other creationist sites. I have found that ti is very rare NOT to find an article with obvious lies in them. If creationism was true you think that they would not have to lie.

So go to evolution and anti-evolution sites. Go to global warming and anti-global warming sites. See which ones are honest. If one side lies the other side can usually point it out. Evolutionists don't have to lie since they have the truth on their side.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be foolish.

Foolish, as in pertaining to atheism?

Or foolish, as in silly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And LastSeven, Ron Wyatt was a huckster and a fraud. Even AiG disparages his work. From the Wiki article on Ron Wyatt:

Wyatt's fellow evangelicals have also been critical: Answers in Genesis called Wyatt's claims "fraudulent,"[14] and one Seventh-day Adventist professor of archaeology sums up Wyatt's Noah's Ark and anchor stones claims in these words: "While the Durupinar site is about the right length for Noah's ark, [it is] ... too wide to be Noah's ark. Wyatt has claimed that the "boat-shapedness" of this formation can only be explained by its being Noah's ark, but both Shea and Morris have offered other plausible explanations. Likewise, Wyatt has argued that the standing stones he has found are anchors, while Terian is aware of similar stones outside the Durupinar site area that were pagan cultic stones later converted by Christians for Christian purposes."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Foolish, as in pertaining to atheism?

Or foolish, as in silly?

Foolish as in pertaining to life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Foolish as in pertaining to life.

Abiogenesis → foolishness?

 

[keith99]

.....The Greenhouse effect has been accepted as settled science for over 100 years. Do you seriously think that doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere would have no effect? I used to be skeptical about AGW too, I would debate against it on websites, but like a good skeptic I did the right thing. I studied the problem. The more I studied it the more I found that the AGW crowd has the facts on their side.

Perhaps you should learn how to be a good skeptic. A good skeptic does not go only to the sites that feed your skepticism. You also need to go to websites that support the opposition.

I have no fear of articles in AiG or other creationist sites. I have found that ti is very rare NOT to find an article with obvious lies in them. If creationism was true you think that they would not have to lie.

So go to evolution and anti-evolution sites. Go to global warming and anti-global warming sites. See which ones are honest. If one side lies the other side can usually point it out. Evolutionists don't have to lie since they have the truth on their side.

Good Christians almost never examine the arguments of the other side.

When I was interesting in Christianity I was exposed to differing schools of thought regarding the 'End Times'. I went to a Christian bookstore and purchased a couple of books, one from each side of a dispute.

The clerk happened to be an instructor at a Christian College. He remarked that no one EVER buys both those books. It simply did not happen, no one every checked out what the other side was saying.

BTW he was commending me. So I have to say almost. He at least would check out both sides and I hope he managed to inspire some of his students to do the same. But he has as much hope as Canute the Great of reversing the tide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis → foolishness?

No. Abiogenesis is only an unanswered question at this point in time. Parts of the answer have been found, but not the whole answer.

Huge move of the goal posts AV. Moving the goal posts is a tacit admission that you are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Abiogenesis → foolishness?

No. Abiogenesis is only an unanswered question at this point in time. Parts of the answer have been found, but not the whole answer.

Huge move of the goal posts AV. Moving the goal posts is a tacit admission that you are wrong.

LOL

What's that curvy thing at the end of my equation, scientist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL

What's that curvy thing at the end of my equation, scientist?

It does not matter. You still moved the goal posts by bringing a totally unrelated subject to this debate.

It is a loser's technique.

 

[AV1611VET]

It does not matter. You still moved the goal posts by bringing a totally unrelated subject to this debate.

That doesn't surprise me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't surprise me.

Yes, you probably very rarely surprise yourself.

At least you are not that mentally ill, yet.

 

[HitchSlap]

Foolish, as in pertaining to atheism?

Or foolish, as in silly?

As in pertaining to theism. The fool has said in their heart, there is a god.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fool has said in their heart, there is a god.

Is this the HIV?

(HitchSlap International Version)