Thousands.....not Billions

[pantsman52]

Good post. Evolutionists also forget that even if they decide that the universe was created through a "Big Bang", something had to get the ball rolling. And there's no getting around that with any theory they postulate. Good job.

What got God rolling?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

And don't those "six types of evolution" come straight from Hovind himself?

Yup. You can tell when someone uses Kent Hovind material that it's going to be all downhill from there...

 

[random_guy]

Good post. Evolutionists also forget that even if they decide that the universe was created through a "Big Bang", something had to get the ball rolling. And there's no getting around that with any theory they postulate. Good job.

And we all know that something is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Asimov]

Good post. Evolutionists also forget that even if they decide that the universe was created through a "Big Bang", something had to get the ball rolling. And there's no getting around that with any theory they postulate. Good job.

Of course you think it's a good post.

Science != Atheism....

 

[TheBear]

Good post. Evolutionists also forget that even if they decide that the universe was created through a "Big Bang", something had to get the ball rolling. And there's no getting around that with any theory they postulate. Good job.

Well, considering that life began on earth billions of years after the Big Bang, just goes to show the lengths people will go to put up strawmen.

 

[Illuminatus]

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.

After reading the first third of your post, running away with your tail behind your legs would be the only way to improve my opinion of your intellectual capability.

 

[Maxwell511]

Good post. Evolutionists also forget that even if they decide that the universe was created through a "Big Bang", something had to get the ball rolling. And there's no getting around that with any theory they postulate. Good job.

The first two articles that he proposed obiviously have data with is false. I haven't read past this and won't until some tries to explain to me how Dr. Humphrey is not a liar.

 

[Roman Soldier]

I suggest warnings and bans for members who prop up strawman versions of evolution.

 

[TheBear]

I suggest warnings and bans for members who prop up strawman versions of evolution.

I second that!

 

[f U z ! o N]

think the Big Bang Theory is a joke eh? ever read up on Cosmic Microwave Background? (CMB) why is it that the temperature of 2.725K can be found all throughout the universe? i think you need to read more about the Big Bang Theory.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html

"Today, the CMB radiation is very cold, only 2.725° above absolute zero, thus this radiation shines primarily in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and is invisible to the naked eye. However, it fills the universe and can be detected everywhere we look"

 

[Ryal Kane]

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.

Okay, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt for now. But keep in mind that you have posted so much that it is hard for there to be debate. It's better to pick a single point and discuss that.

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).

What course are you planning on taking and where? If you are planning on taking it at a main stream university you're probably in for a rude awakening.

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.

Eek! Alarm Bells!

POINT ONE

If you're looking to debate evolution then put aside COSMIC, STELLAR, PLANETARY, CHEMICAL and ORGANIC. These are all loaded terms that basically have nothing to do with evolution. Young Earth Creationism maybe but not the Theory of Evolution. They also look very similar to definitions by Kent Hovind who is a VERY bad source of information.
Sure you can define those types of evolution but anyone can define anything.
I could define Christianity as a religion that worships Flying Purple Pumpkins. But wouldn't it make far more sense to listen to Christians than to me?
and wouldn't it make more sense to listen to the accepted scientific definition of the Theory of Evolution, which is different to all of the above you listed.

POINT TWO

Please define Kind. Give a clear definition. Give a definition which allows us to clearly distinguish one kind from another.

POINT THREE
Macro and Micro are also Creationist terms. I have seen them defined as Species, Kind and an assortment of others. The terms assume some barrier that limits how many changes can accumulate. It's like saying I can count to ten, one at a time, but you will never reach a billion ecause that's Macro Addition. Evolution is just evolution.

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

Okay, I'm going to welch out on these I'm not a physicist or chemist.
I'll leave this to others.
But I'll make one point. The groups linked to above openly admit that ANY evidence contrary to their Biblical interpretation must be wrong. It is a totally unscientific way of looking at things.

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.

Okay. I hope you're right. And until youstart acting badly I'll play nice.

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.

Okay. A couple of points here. Ever seen a mountain side that looked like something? A cloud? I've seen a lot of clouds that look like faces but I don't think they were designed. The supposed Face on Mars is another good example of this.

Secondly, you're suggesting that EVERYTHING is designed. If everything is designed then how are we supposed to tell what is not?

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.

Almost. But there is a big problem. It's not so much a matter of IF God created but HOW. For it to be scientific you cannot invoke the supernatural.

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

Unfortunately the mission statments of these groups paints a different story.
Any evidence contradictiory to the view of a 6000 year old earth MUST be wrong. Surely you see what is wrong with that.

Here is what the Big Bang theory teaches:

......

The Big Bang has NOTHING going for it. Nothing. There is plenty more against it. Real science.

As I said, I'm no physicist or astromonor but from a basic reading you seem to have a VERY different concept of the Big Bang to anything I have ever read. Others on the board are better to answer this than me.

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.
Yah! I've been waiting for slapping permission!
Sadly I have very, very rarely seen a Creationist who did not eventually resort to "Well God can do anything" It's especially common when discussing the flood.

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.

Hope to see your reply but I'm sorry, I can't stick by those definitions. They're just too broad to cover in a single thread. If you want an age of the universe/ age of the earth / abiogenesis debate that's fine but it's diferent from an evolution debate.

Hope to read your reply

 

[Mystman]

CHEMICAL Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
The only one scientific is MICRO Evo. It is proven. Scientifically varifiable.

I stopped reading there.

I take it you've never heard of nuclear fusion? I've been in a test fusion reactor in england. 2 hydrogen -> 1 helium.

 

[Mystman]

STELLAR and PLANETARY Evolution - Origin of Stars and Planets. No one has ever seen a star form.

So there ARE people who think gravity is a myth, and that instead intelligent falling is responsible for me not floating of into space!

 

[Jet Black]

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.

can you give a short list of some of the best textbooks and articles you have come across, and some of the most recent articles, thanks.

 

[Nathan Poe]

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

Doesn't this presume that the geneologies are complete and accurate? On what do you base that assumption?

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.

Such as...?

 

[Carico]

I stopped reading there.

I take it you've never heard of nuclear fusion? I've been in a test fusion reactor in england. 2 hydrogen -> 1 helium.

It looks to me like some hanky-panky went on under the guise of "science."

 

[Split Rock]

Well, that O.P. was way too long. I suggest making your O.P.s smaller and stick to one or two points. Also, stay away from "Dr. Dino" if you want to retain any of your brain cells.

Please Define What a Kind is and How One Can Determine if Two Organisms are of the Same Kind or are Two Different Kinds.

 

[Mystman]

Please Define What a Kind is and How One Can Determine if Two Organisms are of the Same Kind or are Two Different Kinds.

This calls for... the Kitty thread!

You know, the one with all the cute pictures of kitties in which the OP asked if various types of kitties were the same "kind" or not.

To bad I don't have it bookmarked.

 

[Split Rock]

This calls for... the Kitty thread!

You know, the one with all the cute pictures of kitties in which the OP asked if various types of kitties were the same "kind" or not.

To bad I don't have it bookmarked.

There were some cute furry critters in that thread!

But what it really calls for is something no Professional Creationist or person in this forum have succeeded in doing... defining what a "Kind" is, and how we can tell "Kinds" apart.

 

[Caphi]

I stopped reading there.

I take it you've never heard of

nuclear fusion? I've been in a test fusion reactor in england. 2 hydrogen -> 1 helium.

Er, not to nitpick, but helium is created out of four hydrogen atoms. The process emanates four photons, as the two "extra" electrons annihilate themselves against the two positrons emanated as two protons convert themselves into neutrons. Just clarifying here.