Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[MoonLancer]

To give a familiar one: transitional fossils do not prove evolution. In order to prove evolution, we must demonstrate the whole process of evolution. If so, no transitional fossil is needed. This may be a negative example, because we do not know how to demonstrate a complete process of biological evolution.

Positive examples are many. Express it in logic format:

A so B
B so C
We see A and C are true.
So B must be true
We do not need to see the real B.

How was Obama able to win the presidency without all the votes being counted? Why did the stations call ohio for Obama without every single vote in that stat counted? The moment That Ohio was called, I KNEW that Obama won the presidency. How did i know this?

lets assume film is 24 frames a second. If i where to remove 20 of those frames a second the video would be watchable, and we would be able to formulate a very good idea of the movies content and plot without those extra 20 fps. Why is this? How is this possible?

These two explanations demonstrate That Evolution can be absolutely true and NOT need a fossil from every generation.

Your also missing the point. Regardless of if you believe you are a primate or not, The mechanics of evolution have been directly observed in lab. Its a Fact. A provable observable fact, with mountains of evidence to support it. Scientists know more how evolution works, then gravity.

 

[MoonLancer]

You've never seen my Earth2 Challenge?

damn, that was a good show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_2_(TV_series)

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists know more how evolution works, then gravity.

Then maybe they should run gravity through a 24 fps movie, with 20 fps removed?

 

[MoonLancer]

You've never seen my Earth2 Challenge?

That's mixed up logic. Theirs no evidence of a flood so earth2 would look like earth1. NOW what if Earth2 actually had a flood as it was claimed. Well then I can offer 5 things we WOULD see, given their is no evidence or support for a global flood on earth1.


I see a common argument that you pose, With your apple challenge and in this Earth2 argument. Trying to legitimize a unfalsifiable claim or claim with no evidence as some kind of fact or truth is disingenuous.

 

[MoonLancer]

Then maybe they should run gravity through a 24 fps movie, with 20 fps removed?

excellent red harring (or maybe its something similar)

Gravity doesn't have a chain that creationists think needs all the parts to understand, so i don't see how that's relevant. But i suppose we could record a boy tossing a ball at 24 fps and remove 20 frames, and we could still observe the ball at 4 steps instead of all 24.

 

[AV1611VET]

excellent red harring (or maybe its something similar)

Gravity doesn't have a chain that creationists think needs all the parts to understand, so i don't see how that's relevant. But i suppose we could record a boy tossing a ball at 24 fps and remove 20 frames, and we could still observe the ball at 4 steps instead of all 24.

There's a difference though:

With the ball toss, the entire footage is shot, then footage is removed; with evolution, there is no "entire footage shot", and footage is inserted, rather than removed.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's mixed up logic.

Of course it is ---

 

[Chalnoth]

The feature created by a global flood would be the same as one created by local flood. So? You may say it has no evidence. You may also say the evidence is everywhere. You do not understand the nature of your question.

So you admit that the feature created by a global flood would be the same, at least in general terms, as one created by local floods? Great. Now why don't we see a worldwide flood deposit? Why don't we see something akin to the K-T boundary, except as a flood deposit?

A complicate process like a global flood, we should consider one factor at a time. Sediments problem is sediments problem. Water problem is water problem and fish problem is fish problem. Solve one first, then deal with the next one.

Then why don't you try? Pick one. I don't care which. They each individually conclusively show that no global flood can possibly have occurred.

 

[MoonLancer]

Well then I can offer 5 things we WOULD see, given their is no evidence or support for a global flood on earth1.

assuming the biblical flood

Their would be a layer of rock that shows evidence of a flood all around the world.

all dating methods would confirm this.

all animals and people would have a genetic bottle neck (like the cheetah)

we would not see landmasses that are older then 4000 years that should have eroded do to our knowledge of how that material interacts with water.

a possible explanation how 8 people collected all the animals in the world, collected food and water for all the animals and people for years and years, made an enormous arc, all within the time frame of a lifetime.

 

[MoonLancer]

There's a difference though:

With the ball toss, the entire footage is shot, then footage is removed; with evolution, there is no "entire footage shot", and footage is inserted, rather than removed.

How so? God planted the fossils? Again that goes back to how god can remain honest while doing so.

Rather all life occurs but only every so often, evidence of that life survives. only a few frames a second will ever survive. The frames or fossils that scientists have are enough to understand the story or plot that occurred on the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

assuming the biblical flood

Were you talking to me?

If so, may I remind you of your post?

Lets say everything you claim is right... if you where wrong, what would the world look like?

As well as a line from my Earth2 Challenge?

In other words, if God hadn't sent the Flood...

We are not assuming the Biblical Flood here, are we?

That is, assuming you were even talking to me.

 

[MoonLancer]

Were you talking to me?

If so, may I remind you of your post?As well as a line from my Earth2 Challenge?We are not assuming the Biblical Flood here, are we?

That is, assuming you were even talking to me.

I was talking to you. apologies on not being clear.

You started with false assumption that the earth had a global flood. As their is no evidence of a global flood, if earth2 did not have a global flood, it would look like earth1. I was showing that if a Flood occurred ether on earth2 or earth1 what we would see.

 

[Morcova]

Keep looking.

Or you could always provide the evidence.

It is your theory you know.

 

[cwolf20]

Here's an overused thought. Every english bible isn't a true translation. You have to study the original language in order to read the original language of the bible. And even then things are slightly different, because the original bible was actually a bunch of packets of info carried around by people who wrote them and hid them in different locations/caches until they were ready to bring them to someone to put together.

Some of them were probably misplaced due to the people hiding them being unable to pass on the locations before they died. which means the bible probably still isn't a complete collection of writings

 

[Nathan Poe]

I was talking to you. apologies on not being clear.

You started with false assumption that the earth had a global flood.

Actually, he started with the false assumption that the Bible is literally true, coupled with the other false assumption that he can't possibly be mistaken.

Either of those false assumptions causes trouble by itself -- combined they are responsible for the lion's share of the world's misery.

 

[MoonLancer]

Here's an overused thought. Every english bible isn't a true translation. You have to study the original language in order to read the original language of the bible. And even then things are slightly different, because the original bible was actually a bunch of packets of info carried around by people who wrote them and hid them in different locations/caches until they were ready to bring them to someone to put together.

Some of them were probably misplaced due to the people hiding them being unable to pass on the locations before they died. which means the bible probably still isn't a complete collection of writings

see council of Nicea. Some of the writings where purpusely left out due to contradiction or confusing moral logic etc.... So rather then God Creating the bible, it was a group of people who decided what rest of the people should and shouldent know.

I see this as evidice of christains constructing a false truth by removing other texts that might have otherwise shown that conclusivly that lie being told. The bible is already pritty inconsistant. I have to wonder what so inconsistant that had to be removed.

Thiers nostic texts not in the bible that have survived though, such as the one about or written by Judice (i forget which), and another written by Enoch.

 

[MoonLancer]

Actually, he started with the false assumption that the Bible is literally true, coupled with the other false assumption that he can't possibly be mistaken.

Thank you for stating it better then I.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or you could always provide the evidence.

It is your theory you know.

No --- I'll go by what science says in this case.

Since God didn't document that He cleaned it up (at least, not that I know of), I now resort to Plan B, which evidently says there is no evidence [so far].

So until someone does find evidence of the Flood, I have no choice but to assume He removed it.

 

[cwolf20]

*scratches head* there was a history class in which a professor showed that there was evidence that the continents used to be one continent. Which could be caused by a flood receding but not far enough. funny thing though, he was an atheist and stated

"I realize that somebody here will try to use this as proof that God created a flood. This is a history class not a religious class. take it somewhere else."

edit: created wasn't a typo. he did say it instead of "caused"

 

[MoonLancer]

*scratches head* there was a history class in which a professor showed that there was evidence that the continents used to be one continent. Which could be caused by a flood receding but not far enough. funny thing though, he was an atheist and stated

"I realize that somebody here will try to use this as proof that God created a flood. This is a history class not a religious class. take it somewhere else."

edit: created wasn't a typo. he did say it instead of "caused"

Could share more information? I have never heard of this before. Do you still have the text book for this class or know of its name? what were his sources? could you scan a handout for this class?

As I understand it, pangea Is the accepted theory which has to do with plate tectonics, not flooding.