Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="driewerf" data-source="post: 62550024" data-attributes="member: 258809"><p>I want to spend a little space to the typical creationist fallacy of the mature creation. When confronted with observetations of an old Universe creationists fall back on this kind of argument.</p><p></p><p>There is a certain logic that god created Adam as an adult and not as a helpless baby. There is a certain logic that god created the trees fruit bearing etc. The creation wouldn't work without these</p><p></p><p>But this does not address the question of the many features on earth that point to an old age. If we draw a time line from 4.5 billion years ago to know, I am quite sure that there will be not one stretch of a million years in which geolgists can place an event. The many magnetic revearsals on the ocean floor, the formation of the Deccan traps, the many layers of the Great Canyon, the different Ice Ages, hundreds of known impact craters (and many more if we include the Moon and Mercury). These are all features that are not necessary for the creation to work (unlike mature trees etc), yet that we see. </p><p>And then there are astronomical features, like supernovae. We see stars much further away then 6000 Ly, so there light has had to travel longer than the available 6000 years (see the starlight problem) <span style="color: Red"><strong>(*)</strong><strong>(**)</strong></span> <strong>. </strong>Creationists claim that god created light "en route". But What about supernovae. There we reseve what -- light from a star that never existed. Checkmate, creationists! </p><p>To present on a par these the mature trees with all these "useless" features (or, as creationists go, remain silent about) needs to be exposed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: Red">(*) </span></strong><a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Starlight_problem" target="_blank">Starlight problem - RationalWiki</a></p><p><span style="color: Red"><strong>(**) </strong><span style="color: Black">Creationists limit there science always to "cute science". When discussing the ToE </span></span>they limit themselves to easy animals like monkey cats and dogs, never, more "exotic" animals with difficult names. When speaking about dynosaurs they lilit themselves to dynosaurs, never mention any species like Apathosaurus. When discussing astronomy they limit themselves to stars, never venturing to galaxies or clusters of galaxies.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="driewerf, post: 62550024, member: 258809"] I want to spend a little space to the typical creationist fallacy of the mature creation. When confronted with observetations of an old Universe creationists fall back on this kind of argument. There is a certain logic that god created Adam as an adult and not as a helpless baby. There is a certain logic that god created the trees fruit bearing etc. The creation wouldn't work without these But this does not address the question of the many features on earth that point to an old age. If we draw a time line from 4.5 billion years ago to know, I am quite sure that there will be not one stretch of a million years in which geolgists can place an event. The many magnetic revearsals on the ocean floor, the formation of the Deccan traps, the many layers of the Great Canyon, the different Ice Ages, hundreds of known impact craters (and many more if we include the Moon and Mercury). These are all features that are not necessary for the creation to work (unlike mature trees etc), yet that we see. And then there are astronomical features, like supernovae. We see stars much further away then 6000 Ly, so there light has had to travel longer than the available 6000 years (see the starlight problem) [COLOR=Red][B](*)[/B][B](**)[/B][/COLOR] [B]. [/B]Creationists claim that god created light "en route". But What about supernovae. There we reseve what -- light from a star that never existed. Checkmate, creationists! To present on a par these the mature trees with all these "useless" features (or, as creationists go, remain silent about) needs to be exposed. [B][COLOR=Red](*) [/COLOR][/B][url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Starlight_problem]Starlight problem - RationalWiki[/url] [COLOR=Red][B](**) [/B][COLOR=Black]Creationists limit there science always to "cute science". When discussing the ToE [/COLOR][/COLOR]they limit themselves to easy animals like monkey cats and dogs, never, more "exotic" animals with difficult names. When speaking about dynosaurs they lilit themselves to dynosaurs, never mention any species like Apathosaurus. When discussing astronomy they limit themselves to stars, never venturing to galaxies or clusters of galaxies. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?
Top
Bottom