- Mar 28, 2005
- 53
- 2
- 40
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
I am back with my topic as I promised in another thread. No 'running away with my tail between my legs' as someone so eloquently put.
First off, I am a Young Earth Creationist. I have been studying this topic for 6 years. I am only 20 years old, but I consider this one of my hobbies. I have read tons of textbooks and articles on Evolution.I read the latest articles and watch the documentaries (as boring as they can be). I find the topic very interesting.
I made my decision that evolution is a joke, independant of others views. I recognized serious flaws in the evolution theory. Circular reasoning is very prominent it seems! I plan on becoming an Anthropologist. The course looks like a blast! I have been in a good share of debates. No big ones for awhile though (I have been swamped with work and making music, check out my profile for more info).
One thing I have noticed is that when I keep putting forth the evidences and stuff, the evolutionists tend to get REAL mad. Seriously, I don't really know why. I hope that you guys stay cool headed and reasonable. I debate to have fun and to learn. So I hope you see where I am coming from. So be in good spirits and I hope to have an interesting debate. I will try to be as respectful as possible. I don't wanna hurt anyone's feelings or anything. Like I said, keep a cool head. People I debate tend to get mad quick. Don't worry, I don't get mad, I get......I.....hmmm.......yeah, I got nuttin'.
Let me start out with this little bit that outlines the definitions of evolution. In this debate I hope you guys use your terms wisely. It makes a world of difference.
MACRO Evolution - the change of one kind of animal to another in a great amount of time. i.e. reptile to bird
COSMIC Evolution - the origin of time space and matter i.e. The Big Bang
CHEMICAL Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
STELLAR and PLANETARY Evolution - Origin of Stars and Planets. No one has ever seen a star form.
ORGANIC Evolution - origin of life i.e. Abiogenesis
MICRO Evolution - Variations within a kind
The only one scientific is MICRO Evo. It is proven. Scientifically varifiable.
So, you asked for some predictions that the Creation model gives. Well, here is a couple articles. Lots to read and lots of big words, so put on your thinking cap. You guys wanted 3, I give you more. One of you said
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=329
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=371
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/physics.asp
Now, to start off, I am not 'full of my self' or 'arrogant'. Nothing of the sort. I debate to have fun. I do these debates to have a blast. Good times are had, in my opinion. I won't be retreating with my 'tail between my legs'. How ridiculous. If you looked at your own statements it would depict that the only arrogance here is on your part.
I hope you guys are open enough to understand the implications of your own words and the hypocrisy therein. Ok, so if I do somehow come across as arrogant or something, just let me know and I will apologize and correct myself. I have no intention of coming across that way. I am just here to show you what I know. I do debates to learn as well. Call me loser, but I like to learn! I love science. I have no idea why. (I'm a closet nerd it seems)
You guys also had a bunch of misconceptions and misunderstandings. Perhaps some creationists that you have delt with came across this way to you, but it is not universally true. You said:
Scientifically speaking, we don't just say 'Oh God did it'. No, what it seems is a constant is that Evolutionists (can I call you that? any preference?) have no idea what a Creationist is. They have no idea what research can be done. You seem to have this block in your mind that can't let you see past GOD in Creationism. Creationism bases itself in the assumption that God created everything. Creationism goes on to make predictions about the physical universe based on the assumption that it was created by God, not by 'time'. It DOES NOT fill in the 'gaps' with God.
It is like this. Look at Mount Rushmore. Observe it and tell me what created it. Was it the wind? Water? Or Man? You can obviously tell that it was created by Man. The same can be done with the physical universe. There is SO much in relation to this it is unfathomable.
They make the predictions mostly like this, "What would *topic in question* be like if it was created by God?". They then proceed to make scientifically based predictions on what they think would be the result. Studies are than conducted to support their predictions. That is science. They have various methods of making predictions and conducting studies using the Creationism model. The Biblical Creationism model is getting the most results.
See, you miss the beautiful thing about Creationism and the Bible. God did not have to state directly the age of the Earth. The Bible is well chronicled. The people in the Bible are well documented and chronicled. Including their ages. There is MANY things in the Bible that can explain things we see today. Here is link to a graphical representation to describe what I mean.
http://anchorstone.com/chronology2.html
So using this, Creationists came up with the 6000 years old Earth premise. But it is not without merit. Science is providing MUCH evidence to support the Young Earth Creation model.
So do you see? The age of the earth can be determined Biblically, than based on that, many things begin to make sense. Many things in which we observe in the physical universe.
Here are some examples, and I repeat, only some. There is tons.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
Actually go here, it has a ton of articles that may be of interest. I recommend you actually read them.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
Here is what the Big Bang theory teaches:
When nothing gets together. The emptiness is supposed to have gathered together in one place, and gotten so thick that the "nothing" exploded-and blew itself into hydrogen gas
Laws appear. The laws of nature somehow invented themselves during the explosion
Gas gets into clumps. Then the outward exploding gas supposedly gathered itself into clumps.
A universe of explosions. The loose, outward flowing gas next decided to push itself into stars. Then all the stars began exploding in super-nova explosions. But, just before light rays from the explosions could reach our planet in our time in history, the explosions are said to have conveniently stopped
Heavier elements made. Those explosions are supposed to have made all the heavier elements (those above hydrogen and helium).
Rearranging time. In order to adapt to the theory, the supposed age of the universe has been pushed back to a theoretical age of 15 billion years, when the Big Bang is said to have occurred.
Again, you may think it is a 'pretty good theory', but with all do respect, you are mistaken. The theory is a big dud. In fact I had determined this using pure logic when I was in Elementary school! I had thought about the two commonly used forms of the Big Bang. I thought of the explosion and expansion theory. Explosion is ruled out do to many fundamental rules of physics. Current science also renders the expansion theory useless. Put together the pieces and a picture forms.
To say the Big Bang doesn't make leaps of faith is ridiculous. It assumes the existence of things that have never been observed.
Big bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities-things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory cant survive without these fudge factors. Lerner, Eric (2004), Bucking the Big Bang, New Scientist, 20, May 22.
Here is another excerpt
Look at the facts, says Riccardo Scarpa of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile. The basic big bang model fails to predict what we observe in the universe in three major ways. The temperature of todays universe, the expansion of the cosmos, and even the presence of galaxies, have all had cosmologists scrambling for fixes. Every time the basic big bang model has failed to predict what we see, the solution has been to bolt on something new-inflation, dark matter and dark energy, Scarpa says. Chown, Marcus (2005), Did the Big Bang Really Happen?, New Scientist, July 2
The Big Bang has NOTHING going for it. Nothing. There is plenty more against it. Real science.
To say 'Creationists rely on the supernatural when they have gaps in their knowledge. Scientists can not do that.' is again, with all do respect, ignorant. So tell me, where did you come up with that? Did you come up with it yourself or did an evolutionist tell you that? Most evolutionists have no business defining what Creationists believe in, considering most only see the GOD part in Creationism.
They may comment if they truly understand what Creationism is about. Sadly most have no clue. They may also comment if they understand what THEY believe in. For YOUR beliefs are grounded in metaphysical principles to 'fill in the gaps'.
Creationists don't 'rely' on the supernatural to find the answers. Do you see us saying, 'Oh God did that! Oh, and that too! But cuz God did it means we can't say how, but God did it and that is our answer!'.
Heck no! If you see a Creationist saying that you have my permission to smack them upside the proverbial head. Creationism uses science to explain the physical universe. Science. Got it? Ok.
The premise is based on that God 'did it', but Creationists use science and the physical universe to support this premise. You can discover lots about an artist when looking at his art. Creationism makes predictions as well, as I have previously shown. The Creation model is not to be scoffed at. You may scoff, but you are hindering the advancement of science with your misconceptions.
Not a complicated thing to understand what creationism is.
With all do respect, could you make that statement sound any more ignorant? "Without evolution we don't have biology" Huh? Would YOU care to support that statement, or is it a statement that 'you will likely never back up'.
Oi. Are you kidding or are you really serious? Cuz I don't see how my statement could have been misinterpreted. I said EVIDENCE of a Creator can be found. NOT PROOF! Big difference. If we found proof than that would, in effect, PROVE the existence of God. The existence of God cannot be proven. BUT evidence can and has been found for the existence of God. Using the 'Mount Rushmore' method is a very effective way. There are other methods as well.
So yeah, that is my start off post. Please, I welcome you guys to reply with whatever you may have. I look forward to it.
Like I said before, I debate to have fun, I recommend you do too. So keep it civil. Oh, yeah, please don't forget to use the PREFIXES of evolution I gave in the beginning of the post. They are VITAL to debating properly.
First off, I am a Young Earth Creationist. I have been studying this topic for 6 years. I am only 20 years old, but I consider this one of my hobbies. I have read tons of textbooks and articles on Evolution.I read the latest articles and watch the documentaries (as boring as they can be). I find the topic very interesting.
I made my decision that evolution is a joke, independant of others views. I recognized serious flaws in the evolution theory. Circular reasoning is very prominent it seems! I plan on becoming an Anthropologist. The course looks like a blast! I have been in a good share of debates. No big ones for awhile though (I have been swamped with work and making music, check out my profile for more info).
One thing I have noticed is that when I keep putting forth the evidences and stuff, the evolutionists tend to get REAL mad. Seriously, I don't really know why. I hope that you guys stay cool headed and reasonable. I debate to have fun and to learn. So I hope you see where I am coming from. So be in good spirits and I hope to have an interesting debate. I will try to be as respectful as possible. I don't wanna hurt anyone's feelings or anything. Like I said, keep a cool head. People I debate tend to get mad quick. Don't worry, I don't get mad, I get......I.....hmmm.......yeah, I got nuttin'.
Let me start out with this little bit that outlines the definitions of evolution. In this debate I hope you guys use your terms wisely. It makes a world of difference.
MACRO Evolution - the change of one kind of animal to another in a great amount of time. i.e. reptile to bird
COSMIC Evolution - the origin of time space and matter i.e. The Big Bang
CHEMICAL Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
STELLAR and PLANETARY Evolution - Origin of Stars and Planets. No one has ever seen a star form.
ORGANIC Evolution - origin of life i.e. Abiogenesis
MICRO Evolution - Variations within a kind
The only one scientific is MICRO Evo. It is proven. Scientifically varifiable.
So, you asked for some predictions that the Creation model gives. Well, here is a couple articles. Lots to read and lots of big words, so put on your thinking cap. You guys wanted 3, I give you more. One of you said
Well, than. I hope you are more than surprised.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=329
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=371
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/physics.asp
Now, to start off, I am not 'full of my self' or 'arrogant'. Nothing of the sort. I debate to have fun. I do these debates to have a blast. Good times are had, in my opinion. I won't be retreating with my 'tail between my legs'. How ridiculous. If you looked at your own statements it would depict that the only arrogance here is on your part.
I hope you guys are open enough to understand the implications of your own words and the hypocrisy therein. Ok, so if I do somehow come across as arrogant or something, just let me know and I will apologize and correct myself. I have no intention of coming across that way. I am just here to show you what I know. I do debates to learn as well. Call me loser, but I like to learn! I love science. I have no idea why. (I'm a closet nerd it seems)
You guys also had a bunch of misconceptions and misunderstandings. Perhaps some creationists that you have delt with came across this way to you, but it is not universally true. You said:
Scientifically speaking, we don't just say 'Oh God did it'. No, what it seems is a constant is that Evolutionists (can I call you that? any preference?) have no idea what a Creationist is. They have no idea what research can be done. You seem to have this block in your mind that can't let you see past GOD in Creationism. Creationism bases itself in the assumption that God created everything. Creationism goes on to make predictions about the physical universe based on the assumption that it was created by God, not by 'time'. It DOES NOT fill in the 'gaps' with God.
It is like this. Look at Mount Rushmore. Observe it and tell me what created it. Was it the wind? Water? Or Man? You can obviously tell that it was created by Man. The same can be done with the physical universe. There is SO much in relation to this it is unfathomable.
They make the predictions mostly like this, "What would *topic in question* be like if it was created by God?". They then proceed to make scientifically based predictions on what they think would be the result. Studies are than conducted to support their predictions. That is science. They have various methods of making predictions and conducting studies using the Creationism model. The Biblical Creationism model is getting the most results.
See, you miss the beautiful thing about Creationism and the Bible. God did not have to state directly the age of the Earth. The Bible is well chronicled. The people in the Bible are well documented and chronicled. Including their ages. There is MANY things in the Bible that can explain things we see today. Here is link to a graphical representation to describe what I mean.
http://anchorstone.com/chronology2.html
So using this, Creationists came up with the 6000 years old Earth premise. But it is not without merit. Science is providing MUCH evidence to support the Young Earth Creation model.
So do you see? The age of the earth can be determined Biblically, than based on that, many things begin to make sense. Many things in which we observe in the physical universe.
Here are some examples, and I repeat, only some. There is tons.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
Actually go here, it has a ton of articles that may be of interest. I recommend you actually read them.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
Here is what the Big Bang theory teaches:
When nothing gets together. The emptiness is supposed to have gathered together in one place, and gotten so thick that the "nothing" exploded-and blew itself into hydrogen gas
Laws appear. The laws of nature somehow invented themselves during the explosion
Gas gets into clumps. Then the outward exploding gas supposedly gathered itself into clumps.
A universe of explosions. The loose, outward flowing gas next decided to push itself into stars. Then all the stars began exploding in super-nova explosions. But, just before light rays from the explosions could reach our planet in our time in history, the explosions are said to have conveniently stopped
Heavier elements made. Those explosions are supposed to have made all the heavier elements (those above hydrogen and helium).
Rearranging time. In order to adapt to the theory, the supposed age of the universe has been pushed back to a theoretical age of 15 billion years, when the Big Bang is said to have occurred.
Again, you may think it is a 'pretty good theory', but with all do respect, you are mistaken. The theory is a big dud. In fact I had determined this using pure logic when I was in Elementary school! I had thought about the two commonly used forms of the Big Bang. I thought of the explosion and expansion theory. Explosion is ruled out do to many fundamental rules of physics. Current science also renders the expansion theory useless. Put together the pieces and a picture forms.
To say the Big Bang doesn't make leaps of faith is ridiculous. It assumes the existence of things that have never been observed.
Big bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities-things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory cant survive without these fudge factors. Lerner, Eric (2004), Bucking the Big Bang, New Scientist, 20, May 22.
Here is another excerpt
Look at the facts, says Riccardo Scarpa of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile. The basic big bang model fails to predict what we observe in the universe in three major ways. The temperature of todays universe, the expansion of the cosmos, and even the presence of galaxies, have all had cosmologists scrambling for fixes. Every time the basic big bang model has failed to predict what we see, the solution has been to bolt on something new-inflation, dark matter and dark energy, Scarpa says. Chown, Marcus (2005), Did the Big Bang Really Happen?, New Scientist, July 2
The Big Bang has NOTHING going for it. Nothing. There is plenty more against it. Real science.
To say 'Creationists rely on the supernatural when they have gaps in their knowledge. Scientists can not do that.' is again, with all do respect, ignorant. So tell me, where did you come up with that? Did you come up with it yourself or did an evolutionist tell you that? Most evolutionists have no business defining what Creationists believe in, considering most only see the GOD part in Creationism.
They may comment if they truly understand what Creationism is about. Sadly most have no clue. They may also comment if they understand what THEY believe in. For YOUR beliefs are grounded in metaphysical principles to 'fill in the gaps'.
Creationists don't 'rely' on the supernatural to find the answers. Do you see us saying, 'Oh God did that! Oh, and that too! But cuz God did it means we can't say how, but God did it and that is our answer!'.
Heck no! If you see a Creationist saying that you have my permission to smack them upside the proverbial head. Creationism uses science to explain the physical universe. Science. Got it? Ok.
The premise is based on that God 'did it', but Creationists use science and the physical universe to support this premise. You can discover lots about an artist when looking at his art. Creationism makes predictions as well, as I have previously shown. The Creation model is not to be scoffed at. You may scoff, but you are hindering the advancement of science with your misconceptions.
Not a complicated thing to understand what creationism is.
With all do respect, could you make that statement sound any more ignorant? "Without evolution we don't have biology" Huh? Would YOU care to support that statement, or is it a statement that 'you will likely never back up'.
Oi. Are you kidding or are you really serious? Cuz I don't see how my statement could have been misinterpreted. I said EVIDENCE of a Creator can be found. NOT PROOF! Big difference. If we found proof than that would, in effect, PROVE the existence of God. The existence of God cannot be proven. BUT evidence can and has been found for the existence of God. Using the 'Mount Rushmore' method is a very effective way. There are other methods as well.
So yeah, that is my start off post. Please, I welcome you guys to reply with whatever you may have. I look forward to it.
Like I said before, I debate to have fun, I recommend you do too. So keep it civil. Oh, yeah, please don't forget to use the PREFIXES of evolution I gave in the beginning of the post. They are VITAL to debating properly.
