Will answer almost all questions evolutionists have

stop trying to bring evolution down to your level of logic. evolution will never have anything to do with faith or religion.

saying evolution and creation are based on faith doesn't make your belief in god any more logical or right.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I think that God probably used something like a meteor so impact the earth so that the crust would crack, letting the water that was under the crust burst out and flood the earth. a meteor would break the canopy of water that was above the atmosphere, and it would break the earth up into plates. anything is possible, but you cant tell just by looking at the earth how it is today.

i would think that an impact of the magnitude required to acctually initiate continental drift (it would have to be HELLA more powerfull than the impact thought to have killed off the dinos) would have annihilated ALL higher life on earth (hell possibly even the earth itself) INCLUDING noah and his ark...

i would think that an impact of the magnitude required to acctually initiate continental drift (it would have to be HELLA more powerfull than the impact thought to have killed off the dinos) would have annihilated ALL higher life on earth (hell possibly even the earth itself) INCLUDING noah and his ark...

I didnt say it started continental drift. I simply said that the impact was used to crack open the crust of the earth. and if I didnt say that, that is what was meant to be said.

stop trying to bring evolution down to your level of logic. evolution will never have anything to do with faith or religion.
saying evolution and creation are based on faith doesn't make your belief in god any more logical or right.

dude, you obviously dont know what the meaning of faith is. now do you know for a fact that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago?
do you know for a fact that bacteria ultimately evolved into everything we see today over millions of years?

do you know that the entire evolution theory is a fact, or do you take it by faith? ( the entire evolution theory excluding micro evolution,)

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I didnt say it started continental drift. I simply said that the impact was used to crack open the crust of the earth. and if I didnt say that, that is what was meant to be said.

If that happened LAVA would have come out.. not water.

dude, you obviously dont know what the meaning of faith is.

Faith is believing in something without evidence.. there is scientific evidence that supports evolution, the age of the earth, the big bang [which is NOT an evolution theory- how many times are you going to repeat this 'nothing' argument? I've seen it three times now.].. and yet you have NO evidence to support genisis. You have zilch. You keep repeating over and over and over and over and over again that evolution is a faith without evidence though you've been told repetitively what the evidence is.. and you dismiss it without reason. You even went as far as sending me a U2U asking me what 'evolutionists want to hear.. how can I make them believe?!'. You systematically troll the boards posting the same BS just like EXPERT666 and BLUETOOTH used to do. This similarity, as was your ISP.. was questioned and a mod then threatened warnings against speculation.

Warn away.

You then were stupid enough to actually answer the accusation with "He's an email friend of mine and is really cool." and THEN you said.. [just in case mods realised you were using the same PC] low and behold.. she is in fact your wife. DO YOU THINK WE'RE F*** STUPID?! Everyone knows you are a liar.. you have just been tolerated. I'm certain that the only reason you haven't been banned yet again is for comic relief.. you certainly haven't offered anything else to discussion other than letting the rest of us know how creationalist conspirators work.


I really needed to get that out.. it's been a long time coming. I guess my username would look much prettier with a touch of red beside it.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I didnt say it started continental drift. I simply said that the impact was used to crack open the crust of the earth. and if I didnt say that, that is what was meant to be said.

even to crack the earth's crust, to get down to this fairytale load of water under our surface, the meteor would have to be huge, probably huge enough to destroy the planet to never be capable of sustaining life again.

dude, you obviously dont know what the meaning of faith is. now do you know for a fact that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago?

there's more evidence to suggest they lived that long ago than they didn't, there's also more evidence to suggest the earth is of a great age rather than 6000 years old. so i put together different pieces of evidence and 'i' come to the conclusion that dinosaurs did live that long ago.

do you know for a fact that bacteria ultimately evolved into everything we see today over millions of years?

that(evolution), the matrix, aliens, or religion. four main reason why we could be here? there is more evidence to suggest that ''that(evolution)'' is the reason we are here, than being in some sort of matrix reality, an alien experiment, or by chance one of the thousands of sects of religions could be right. hence, again i choose the one where there is a suficiant amount of evidence.

do you know that the entire evolution theory is a fact, or do you take it by faith? ( the entire evolution theory excluding micro evolution,)

the pieces of evolution are being put together, some of the theory is still theory, yet some is fact, i'm not sure if it will ever be whole fact, yet gravity is still a theory and that's much older than evolution.

to pick up a book that was written, changed, translated, altered over thousands of years, and have the nerve to say other people's beliefs are solely based on faith is such a hypocritical view.

this is probably gonna sound really anal, but can you guys please show who in fact you are quoting?...

ie:

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

Originally posted by Urn

and so forth...

like i said...very anal...lol

...but it helps...

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Urn]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the pieces of evolution are being put together, some of the theory is still theory, yet some is fact, i'm not sure if it will ever be whole fact, yet gravity is still a theory and that's much older than evolution.

well, evolution itself, is in fact, a fact...how it works on the other hand, is in fact, a theory (yes, there is a difference, a HUGE difference in fact)...(i know you already know this shaunybaby, i'm just explaining it again for everybody elses sake [and using your quote to help make it stick...hopfully ])...

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Urn]

Originally posted by Urn
this is probably gonna sound really anal, but can you guys please show who in fact you are quoting?...

ie:

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

Originally posted by Urn

and so forth...

like i said...very anal...lol

...but it helps...

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Urn]

if you notice at the top of my quotes i put:

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

then unless the person who i'm quoting from changes, i have no need to put evolution cruncher again...

hehe...i understand dude...that wasn't directed at you in particular....it's just that alot of people seem to be quoting other people without adding the name of whom they are quoting...

a name for every specific quote isn't neccessery (as long as their name is on the first quote, and its the same person being quoted afterwards)...but i've noticed that alot of people aren't doing that...(not necessarily in this thread either)...

Faith is believing in something without evidence

dude, you are proving my point, there is no EVIDENCE that shows that bacteria can evolve into humans over millions of years.

there is no EVIDENCE that shows life can sponteously generate.

and there is no EVIDENCE that shows the evolution theory to be correct at all.

ill get back to you with some links.


EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I understand the the bible does not have every single bit of history, but for what it does have, I believe to be 100% accurate.
and the evidence that is presented in support of an old earth is not based fact, its based on assumption of many things.

evolution and creation are taken by faith.

EC

ok, thanks for answering !

What I was getting at is this; If the bible is 100% accurate, you have to link noahs ark, the garden of eden with creationism. You can't say one is a parable or allegory, and the other is fact based on how it supports your argument. Its all or nothing.

So Noah was able to gather EVERY SINGLE species from the galapagos islands, hawaii, japan, antarctice, south america, north america, asia, alaska, and keep them alive in his ark, right ? right !?!

And every living human, (aborigine, african, celtic, asian, arab, indian, pacific islanders) is a direct decendant of adam and eve ? well, I should say the offspring of thier sons and daughters (ewwww)


and god waved his magic wand and "poof", we are here.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
and there is no EVIDENCE that shows the evolution theory to be correct at all.

You've been given it.. and haven't refuted it with science.. except with [paraphrased] 'thats just stooopid cus it's not in the bible'.

ill get back to you with some links.

Still waiting. If you are indeed correct.. you should be able to find scientific sites that are not biased to the bible [that means no mention or inference to it] that completely supports your views. If you cannot.. it means the scientific FACTS conflict with your beliefs and therefore your views are not fact. You cannot just pick and choose facts to fit.. they will not change or dissapear just because they are inconvenient.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I didnt say it started continental drift. I simply said that the impact was used to crack open the crust of the earth. and if I didnt say that, that is what was meant to be said.

sorry evolution cruncher, i assumed that you where implying continental drift...and i appologize for jumping to that conclussion....

BUT, STILL ....an impact powerfull enough to "crack open the crust of the earth"? my point still stands...there ain't no way that Noah, or his ark, or all the "kinds" of animals on "said" ark could have possibly survived such an impact...

it's simply not possible...

EC

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Urn]

I'm goign to get a load of silly commments for this, but i can't sto myself
to all the creationists,

If god created all we see around us in 7 days , then who created God, and how long did that take...?

i'm no creationist and i'll answer... nothing created god, god has always been, for god there is no beginning and end...hence nothing created god. pretty normal answer you'll get from any creationist. but it avoids the actual question of 'who created god', because saying 'nothing' created god isn't really answering it, because honestly creationists don't know that 'nothing' created god and god has always been here.

Originally posted by jake1997
Lots of things that we don't have on video we know still happened.

Evolution is not one of them [not on video, still know it happened]
[brackets my clarification]

We know that evolution happened just as much as we know that the american revolution happened or that the jews were held in captivity in Babylonia or that electrons orbit nucleii in quantum orbitals.

In the above quote you only say scientific, so I guess we can leave it at that. My point is made.

Your point was that evolution is not scientific, and specifically because it 'makes assumptions'. This is simply not correct. Making reasonable and rational assumptions is perfectly scientific. A scientist looks down a microscope and assumes that he is not seeing some false image. Its reasonable to assume that a glass lens doesn't make fake images and that microscopy is a reliable science. Evolutionary Biology, and allied sciences like geology and radiochronology, etc etc, are thoroughly scientific. They are as scientific as Physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc.

Evolution Cruncher
very few if any are found in the lower layers, in fact most fossil meteorites are found in the upper layers.

I should think that the answer to this is obvious no??? And I do have to say that you've avoided the question. The known craters indicate a massive impact every 30-odd years. That'd make giant meteor impacts more like weather than strange and rare events.

and you dont know for a fact if water was under the crust of the earth or if there wasnt

We also don't know if the moon used to be made out of green cheese, but we have pretty good reasons to think that it wasn't. Where is the evidence for these things?

and some from the canopy of water talked about in genesis chapter 1.

The vapour canopy is a physical immpossibility, and there is simply not enough water on the planet to cover the entire planet. It can't just be brushed under the crust. Water doesn't exist as giant underground lakes. It exists in the ground in the pore spaces of the sediments and rocks that make up the crust. There is no vast reserve of water to cover the planet.

evolution and creation are taken by faith.

No one accepts evolution via faith. It'd be absurd to do so. Evolution is a science, not a faith.

now do you know for a fact that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago?

We have dinosaur skeletons, coordinated within a fossil record, and within strata that date, via relative ages and multiple independant, reliable, dating methods to around that time. Its not a 'fact' in the sense that no historical data are facts, its not a fact in a very strict 'epistemological' sense, but its as much a 'fact' as the 'fact' that electrons make up electrcity, or that you can 'split' an 'atom' and get 'energy'. One can question the 'metaphysical nature' of the fact, but a live wire will still shock ya, a nuke will still wipe out a city, and dinosaurs still ruled the earth 65mya.

do you know that the entire evolution theory is a fact,

No theory is a fact. The words 'theory' and 'fact' are seperate words, they are disctinct, there are not 'fact-theories' or 'theorified-facts'. There are only observations of nature, and thoughts about that. So no, 'evolution theory', by definition, is not a fact.

the entire evolution theory excluding micro evolution

I have to re-iterate that the splitting of evolution into 'micro and macro' is very misleading. Its more of a specialized terminology that biologists use, rather than something that the lay public has much use for. Its like how sailors call one thing a boat and another a ship. The difference doesn't really make a difference, unless you are using the terms in the specific instances where they do apply.

"microevolution" usually defined as the change within a species over time. "Macroevolution" is usually defined as changes 'above the species level', and generally this means speciation.
Both micro and macro evolution have been observed in modern times. What hasn't been observed is, say, the evolution of man from lower primates, or the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. We can see the results of those changes, but obviously we've never observed them.

there is no EVIDENCE that shows that bacteria can evolve into humans over millions of years.

Yes, there is. We can see that populations change over time, we observe evolution occuring. We know that populations of organisms will evolve and we can see that there are no limits to the changes, given time (iow, large changes don't necessarilly occur in one step, but can occur over time). We can also see via the fossil record that there is an 'ecological' progression from very simple bacterial life, to eukaryotic life, to extremely simple multicellular life, to more complex multicellular life, and on and on into simple animals, complex animals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammal-like reptiles, mammals, primitive primates, advanced apes, something like chimps, then something more like chimps but also a little like men, and then more and more like men.
We can also independantly look at the genetic evidence (in addition to this morphological evidence) and compare and we get roughly the same 'tree' in all these sequences. We can even look at the molecular make up of specific, independant proteins and again independantly 'confirm' these 'trees'. No, we never can say its a fact, its allways a theory, a hypothesis about the evolution of life. But its a good hypothesis, one that's backed up by mountains of evidence, and has been for over a hundred years. And in that time, no one has refuted it. Its possible that it can be refuted, and thats why its scientific. Creationism can't be refuted, its not open to refutation, thats why its not scientific. If the vapour canopy doesn't work out, than one can posit some other miracle to explain the water. If there's not enough room on the ark, then you (not you specifically, just a generalized 'creationist) can just make up something about 'kinds' of animals, or any other sort of miracles.

Evolution is something that a rational and logical consideration of the world around us and the evidence it presents leads one too. Creationism starts with the faith based conclusion that the bible in literaly history, and seeks to re-interpret and select physical evidence that can be said to 'support' it. That is not science. Evolution is science.

Originally posted by riley
Warn away.

Well I did ask for it.. [and won't do that again.. it's kinda expensive].

At least I can confidently say I have never deliberately posted false, missleading or innacurate information as fact.



[edit on 17-8-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i'm no creationist and i'll answer... nothing created god, god has always been, for god there is no beginning and end...hence nothing created god. pretty normal answer you'll get from any creationist. but it avoids the actual question of 'who created god', because saying 'nothing' created god isn't really answering it, because honestly creationists don't know that 'nothing' created god and god has always been here.

I've often heard the contention that "God always was and always is and will always be," which is similar to the theories about time and the life of the universe never really beginning or ending.

Zip

If god created all we see around us in 7 days , then who created God, and how long did that take...?

the thing with God is, he is eternal. if you know what that means, you will know that God was not created by anyone or anything, he is unlimited and unefffected by all things. God wouldnt be God if he had to have someone create him. also, if the infinite God could fit in my little three pound brain, he wouldnt be worth worshipping.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

If god created all we see around us in 7 days , then who created God, and how long did that take...?

the thing with God is, he is eternal. if you know what that means, you will know that God was not created by anyone or anything, he is unlimited and unefffected by all things. God wouldnt be God if he had to have someone create him. also, if the infinite God could fit in my little three pound brain, he wouldnt be worth worshipping.

EC

Does the christian God change? Does he evolve or become something else?