• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The evolving LIES of evolution

AngryNotice

A blush Instilled.
Aug 31, 2005
391
11
usa
✟607.00
Faith
Christian
throughout history, there have been numerous attempts to bring down christianity. Those involved have used many different tactics as ways to take people away from Jesus. The truth is never complicated, its always smack in your face and impossible to ignore! So when I heard of evolution in school and college, it always kept me dumbfounded on how someone could support such a uncertain scientific theory. Seemingly intelligent men and women supporting flat-out lies, or not presenting the other side of the evolution. That other side would be creationism. Creationism has more logic behind it than evolution, and i will give my reasoning below..

first of all, in order to believe in evolution, that means that it had to of elasped over millions and millions of years. however, by dating certain events of the bible, one can discover that the earth cannot be more than 6,000 years old! so evolution either happened over 6000 years(sicentists say no) or it DIDNT HAPPEN AT ALL!! to suggest that evolution only deals with life on earth, is wrong. because it also makes references to other forums of science. including the big bang.

it is often told, that we did not evolve from modern apes or monkeys, but rather us and them share a common ancestor. This idea however has some major flaws. Because some of the reported "missing links" have been shown to be fakes. What does this kind of message tell us about those scientists? are those evolutions so desperate to find evidence FOR their theory that they literally make it up? It seems that evolution is the conclusion that scientists make, and now they search desperately for the evidence! how laughable!! you can look at any two animals on earth, and notice that they are almost identical. however no two people on earth are alike, we look vastly different from each other! humans HAD to of been designed by a higher power.

what I witness here, proves my point. often the most intellectual creationists here (carico, dad, sacklunch) are often mocked by the evolutions. rather than give example to their own theory, they spend time mocking Jesus and christianity. this kind of nonsense however, is not new, it's been done in the past, and will continue to happen in the future. the only thing I can say is, with time we will continue to find flaws with evolutionism, and eventually it will become a thing of the past. like when scientists said the earth was flat, or said we would never walk on the moon.. we owe or Lord thanks.

AMEN! :preach:
 
  • Like
Reactions: SackLunch

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
29
36
✟23,789.00
Faith
Hindu
Fallacy number 1: The Bible isn't entirely true, y'know. The planet is indeed well over six thousand years old; radiocarbon dating reveals it to be more like 4.6 billion years old.

Fallacy number 2: Evolution is not an attempt at destroying Christianity.

Fallacy number 3: You seriously listen to what SackLunch says?
 
Upvote 0

AngryNotice

A blush Instilled.
Aug 31, 2005
391
11
usa
✟607.00
Faith
Christian
Caphi said:
Fallacy number 1: The Bible isn't entirely true, y'know. The planet is indeed well over six thousand years old; radiocarbon dating reveals it to be more like 4.6 billion years old.

Fallacy number 2: Evolution is not an attempt at destroying Christianity.

Fallacy number 3: You seriously listen to what SackLunch says?


1 radiocarbon dating has been shown to give false results. one thing I heard of was recently killed seals being dated to over 50000 years old! do you beleive that??

2 evolution is trying to distroy creationism. thats what it was invented for, as a way to explain the world around us without religion!

3. from the posts i witness, he hasnt been discredited as of yet..i only see mocking.
 
Upvote 0
I

Ilovecartoons

Guest
Caphi said:
Fallacy number 1: The Bible isn't entirely true, y'know. The planet is indeed well over six thousand years old; radiocarbon dating reveals it to be more like 4.6 billion years old.

Fallacy number 2: Evolution is not an attempt at destroying Christianity.

Fallacy number 3: You seriously listen to what SackLunch says?

Radiocarbon dating can't tell the age beyond 50,000 years, maybe 100,000 because that's how much time it takes for the entire starting amount to decay. Besides, we have lots of evidence for a young Earth. I will edit this post and give a web site.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

This one uses the meteoric dust argument, but it has other good arguments.

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay18.htm
 
Upvote 0

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
29
36
✟23,789.00
Faith
Hindu
radiocarbon dating has been shown to give false results. one thing I heard of was recently killed seals being dated to over 50000 years old! do you beleive that??


Source and citation, please.

evolution is trying to distroy creationism. thats what it was invented for, as a way to explain the world around us without religion!


Would you rather use religion to explain the world? "I've got a cold. It's God's fault." Whoops, there goes the entire field of medicine. "Look, a stone axe! God must have given it to someone." Good-bye, anthropology. "I need food. I think I'll make God give it to me." Agriculture and hunting just went down the tube.

Now, let's try this again. Do you really believe evolution theory was proposed solely to destroy Christianity?

from the posts i witness, he hasnt been discredited as of yet..i only see mocking


Look harder. Most of the topics he made are all dead because he got soundly refuted and went away.
 
Upvote 0

PulpitFiction

Active Member
Sep 4, 2005
41
3
36
United States
✟176.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Caphi said:
Oh, by the way -

Fallacy 4: Evolution and the Big Bang have nothing to do with each other.

Fallacy 5: Design is not necessary for variation.

Fallacy 6: Evolution is not an 'uncertain scientific theory', it is as accepted and as substantiated as any other.

Lets keep listing fallacies, first to 100 wins!
 
Upvote 0

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
29
36
✟23,789.00
Faith
Hindu
Yaey! A contest!

Fallacy 7: All evolutionary intermediate fossils are fake (or even most of them).

Fallacy 8: The scientific community routinely fabricates evidence to fit new theories.

I dunno, I think "fallacy" is a bad word for this one. How about "lie"? That has the additional bonus of being ironic.
 
Upvote 0

AngryNotice

A blush Instilled.
Aug 31, 2005
391
11
usa
✟607.00
Faith
Christian
Caphi said:
Oh, by the way -

Fallacy 4: Evolution and the Big Bang have nothing to do with each other.

Fallacy 5: Design is not necessary for variation.

1 yes, they do. because the big bang suggests that the universe is millions of years old, and thus fits into the "evolutionary time frame" needed for animals to evolve. Its simply not true.

2 explain further??

random_guy said:
I call joke poster. Putting dad as reasonable is like asking Dr. Hovind for medical attention.

first, look at my previous posts. second, when dad posts all he gets in return is mocking.

PulpitFiction said:
Fallacy 6: Evolution is not an 'uncertain scientific theory', it is as accepted and as substantiated as any other.

its uncertain enough that some books have a sticker on them saying "EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY". plus, if it werent so certain it wouldnt be up for discussion in kansas now would it??
 
Upvote 0

AngryNotice

A blush Instilled.
Aug 31, 2005
391
11
usa
✟607.00
Faith
Christian
Caphi said:
Yaey! A contest!

Fallacy 7: All evolutionary intermediate fossils are fake (or even most of them).

Fallacy 8: The scientific community routinely fabricates evidence to fit new theories.

1 if some have been shown to be fake, like piltdown, why believe anything else they say? they were willing to lie the first time, why not a second time?

GoSeminoles! said:
Why do you suppose that Wheaton College, one of the top protestant Christian colleges in the USA, features evolution prominently in its biology curriculum?

Beats me, I wont judge the man personally. Thats up to god
 
Upvote 0

Nightson

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning
Jul 11, 2005
4,470
235
California
✟5,839.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
AngryNotice said:
first, look at my previous posts. second, when dad posts all he gets in return is mocking.

When someone starts changing all the laws of the known universe as they please people tend to stop paying attention.....
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
I can't believe I removed dad from my ignore list to reread this:

dad said:
My point is, from the actual data I can so far see, nothing says it has to be hot at the core. There is a lot of heat involved closer to the surface, of course. Volcanoes, etc. What I want to look at is if this heat is better explained as a result of continents sliding quickly somewhere in the flood period. Also, residual settling in, after the big event. Then there is meteors, and some heat elsewhere also possible. But this would only go to the mantle type of depth.
But how deep is goes, as I understand it is only conjecture. As a starting point, I have tried to use a giant diamond as the core, surrounded by water. The density, I think is about right. We still have our 'crystal gyro' in the core producing the magnetic field (spaceship earth's deflectors, and shields). So why then must it be hot? The same could be applied to the mantle, and outer core, which material fits the evidence best, regardless of temperature?

This is the first of a 500 thread post of him defending a diamond centered Earth, even though everyone kept pointing to every single piece of evidence against it.

I heard he once said that New Jeruselum was in the center of the moon, but that was a rumor. The sad thing is, I can't tell if that was the truth or not.

So, you think that spiritual/physical light, world split, diamond center Earth is such a great idea, or do you think they are great ideas because they're proposed by someone on your team (whom I suspect is actually dismantling it from the inside)?
 
Upvote 0

Maxwell511

Contributor
Jun 12, 2005
6,073
260
41
Utah County
✟23,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Ilovecartoons said:

One of the agruments in here is. The decaying of the earth's magnetic field too fast. The model is proposed by Dr. Humphreys who is a liar. If you want to say he isn't then how come he says here

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=329

"I estimated the present magnetic moments for the Sun, Moon, and all the planets for which we had magnetic data in 1984.2 The values I got agreed well with the measured values shown by the solid dots in Figure 1."

The moon has no magnetic field and therefore a measurement of it's field would be zero. He gives it a value of over 10^12 A m^2. Not to big but significant none the less. LIAR.
 
Upvote 0
I

Ilovecartoons

Guest
Maxwell511 said:
One of the agruments in here is. The decaying of the earth's magnetic field too fast. The model is proposed by Dr. Humphreys who is a liar. If you want to say he isn't then how come he says here

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=329

"I estimated the present magnetic moments for the Sun, Moon, and all the planets for which we had magnetic data in 1984.2 The values I got agreed well with the measured values shown by the solid dots in Figure 1."

The moon has no magnetic field and therefore a measurement of it's field would be zero. He gives it a value of over 10^12 A m^2. Not to big but significant none the less. LIAR.

Maybe YOU'RE wrong. Maybe there IS a magnetic field.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Ilovecartoons said:
Maybe YOU'RE wrong. Maybe there IS a magnetic field.

You mean maybe NASA, every single cosmologists, every single engineering equipment is wrong. There is no magnosphere on the Moon. It may have had one at some point, but it no longer exists. The moon has no global internal magnetic field, unlike the Earth.
 
Upvote 0