MonroeTalks.com > Categories > Religion & Philosophy > Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll


Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 16   Go Down

Author Topic: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll  (Read 26684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MonroeMonkey

  • Guest
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #180 on: July 29, 2012, 12:08:16 AM »

Can you prove they didn't?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Logged

jbs49238

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #181 on: July 29, 2012, 12:10:14 AM »

Not a valid answer.
Logged

MonroeMonkey

  • Guest
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #182 on: July 29, 2012, 12:42:38 AM »

Not a valid answer.

Not a valid answer.
Logged

livewire

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13937
  • "SHALL NOT be infringed". Got it?
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #183 on: July 29, 2012, 07:36:12 AM »

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

That's a big fat NO.   ;)
Logged
The Spirit of the Woods is like an old good friend.
Makes me feel warm and good inside.

Forsythia

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1986
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #184 on: July 29, 2012, 07:48:24 AM »

Less that was a localized event amd there was no date given for the time it happened.   I have read Hovinds dissertation have you?  I have watched a ton of Hovind videos and I have come to the conclusion that he is mentally unstable.  I have been to his website and read his prision blog.  Do you know how heavily censored that website is?  I do.

Face it Less you have no ground to stand on.
Logged
For those who have problems with my posts, please feel free to fill out the form at the link below and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGF4UVJ5UmpZLUhzX0dMNEotSEljTXc6MQ


Ignorance is only blissful for the ignorant.  The rest of us have to put up with you idiots.

"Prayer is nothing more than bargain basement anger." A. LaVey


"A christian telling an atheist he is going to hell is about as scary as a small child telling an adult they won't get any presents from santa." - R. Gervais

LessGovernment

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1264
  • "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom"
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #185 on: July 29, 2012, 09:56:46 AM »

"my name is Forsythia; evolution is FACT because Hovind is mentally unstable"...

Great argument!

I guess all the people who want the LIES out of the textbooks that support that dumb theory are mentally unstable too.

I am pretty sure the "mentally unstable" Kent Hovind(post-dissertation) handled the skeptic Michael Shermer QUITE WELL in their last debate(pre-prison) - (or, at least evolution wasn't PROVEN to be FACT once the debate was concluded); especially when he made the point, to paraphrase "if you're such a skeptic, WHY don't you just HELP ME get the lies of of the textbooks?"

You ought to THINK, Forsythia, before you write such blanket Ad Hominem's that only rip on Hovind's character(and ignore his presented SCIENCE) in order to help your buddy Xerxes.

OK everyone watch - here's a link to the debate ... let's all pick it apart and have a POLL: "does Kent Hovind present his materials/textbook pages/scientific observations as though he is a mentally unstable person and unable to understand science - who also presents NO CASE and NO EVIDENCE for the creation account, and the flood of Noah's day account approximately 4400 years ago being at least a 50/50 possibility with respect to the ORIGIN of HUMAN LIFE?(and current population levels of HUMANS?)"

Please point out the STUPID things Hovind says that makes fundamentalist Christians morons, delusional, ignorant, and exhibiting signs of having a mental disorder for believing in God.

Kent Hovind - Debate 20 - How to Debate a Creationist - Kent Hovind vs. Michael Shermer


« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 01:28:34 PM by LessGovernment »
Logged
"Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad; if it be ill, they will cure it. But, if men be bad, let the government be ever so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn." - William Penn

MonroeMonkey

  • Guest
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #186 on: July 29, 2012, 01:16:20 PM »

...and the flood of Noah's day account being at least a 50/50 possibility...

We'll take creationism and a global flood seriously, when it can explain these things below in the light of creationism and a flood. Until then, nope.



Coral produces daily and annual rings, so scientists can tell by them how many days are in a year now (365).

Also, there is a friction caused by ocean tides which slows the Earth's rotation at a fairly consistent rate, so if you do the math in relation to tidal friction, then there should have been 400 days in a year 400 million years ago.

Now, the igneous rocks of the devonian date 400 million years old, using radiometeric dating, which I've already explained.

And guess what scientists find when they observed fossilized coral found in devonian rock? They found the coral testify of there being 400 days in year, just as we'd expect the coral to show if they are really 400 million years old.

And coral found fossilized from 200 million years ago show 380 days in a year, roughly. So, you find the slow gradual change in days per year, according to coral. A flood cannot name sense of this. A flood would have to say there was 400 days in a year that quickly went to 365, and you'd find both fossilized together. You don't! You find a gradual change.

And guess what!?

Scientists NEVER find coral of 365 days with the coral of 400 days. NEVER. Not even close. I read about this a few years back in biologist Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True.


Here you have three independent sciences coming together to testify of the FACT of an ancient Earth. Makes sense of that, Young Earthers and those who preach a global flood.
Logged

Forsythia

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1986
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #187 on: July 29, 2012, 01:32:00 PM »

Less I have poiinted out on multiple occasions where Hovind uses ad homenim attacks and junk science for his beliefs.  Every last argument for a young earth has been refuted by a variety of different sciences.  The man did not do any research into science befofe making his claims.  You can post those videos over and over, but it's not going to chamge the facts.  Have you actually read any of the scientific evisence that refutes Hovinds claims?  Have you taken the time to reaearch that which you fear?   Both Xerxes and I have used multiple sources to back up our facts.  You use one man who has been embarrassed.
Logged
For those who have problems with my posts, please feel free to fill out the form at the link below and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGF4UVJ5UmpZLUhzX0dMNEotSEljTXc6MQ


Ignorance is only blissful for the ignorant.  The rest of us have to put up with you idiots.

"Prayer is nothing more than bargain basement anger." A. LaVey


"A christian telling an atheist he is going to hell is about as scary as a small child telling an adult they won't get any presents from santa." - R. Gervais

LessGovernment

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1264
  • "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom"
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #188 on: July 30, 2012, 01:47:21 PM »

"You use one man who has been embarrassed."

Accuse Hovind of ad hominems, and you come back with this ad hominem?

You also forgot about Walt Brown, Dr. John Whitcomb, and John MacArthur's exposition of 2 Peter 3.

What kind of total B.S./distraction/shifting of the burden of proof, and outright RUNNING AWAY from the challenge to justify GOVERNMENT-FUNDING of your DUMB THEORY supported with LIES IN THE TEXTBOOKS is this crap?  "We'll believe creation and the flood when you ANSWER my questions"?

I challenged ANYONE reading this thread to pick Hovind's scientific evidence and statements apart - and DESTROY HIM/embarrass him once and for all ... and ONLY you two come back with "Hovind is an idiot" summary statements, and "you PROVE creation FIRST" ... c'mon ... that's WEAK!

You BOTH just got OWNED!!!

The well was already poisoned before Hovind was born by the "idea" that God exists.

It's called CONSCIENCE and CREATION revelation to ALL of MANKIND ... you guys have LOST - believe what you want, risk the eternity of your souls; that is YOUR CHOICE - but - using tax dollars to support your STUPID THEORY that strings EVERYTHING together with the DEITY called "time", and NO EMPIRCAL EVIDENCE; that BURDEN is on all your boys living off the government teet - and I will die on the hill that a very small minority believe there is NO GOD that created anything, that it's ALL NATURAL and the origin of life is CONTAINED within the physical world we can see, smell, and touch!

Hovind's computer analogy OWNED your side in his opening statement; you CANNOT EXPLAIN the ORIGIN of anything within the thing itself - such as - finding bones in the dirt in a certain rock layer; and postulating that tens and hundreds of millions of years later HUMANS EVOLVED from a FISH.

That is BEYOND stupid to believe that, and you will NEVER gain majority opinion on that - you may INDOCTRINATE people to SAY they believe that, and WITHHOLD a degree of higher education, a job, a tenured position, a pension, an opportunity, support for the publication of a scientific study, or GOVERNMENT FUNDING - but you'll NEVER get most of the world to DENY the existence of God through your fairly tale THEORY...all you can do is STRONG-ARM people, INTIMIDATE and RIDICULE them; hoping that they will go away and SHUT UP about God's MORAL ABSOLUTES and authority OVER corrupt governments, RELIGIOUS hypocrites(clergy included - Matthew 24), and proper stewardship over the Earth itself that He created, and it's INFINITE resources!

GAME OVER - rip Hovind amongst your trolling atheistic friends on the internet to upset Christians; you have NOT made your case, you have ONLY cited your bias and DEMANDED Christians chase down your every case, when your side has yet to answer ours ... and FOR THE RECORD ... our RELIGIOUS THEORY is NOT tax-supported; YOURS IS!!!

The debate is about ORIGINS ... not, "how things work" ... thanks for playing ...

LessGovernment OUT!   ;D ;D ;D
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 02:04:59 PM by LessGovernment »
Logged
"Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad; if it be ill, they will cure it. But, if men be bad, let the government be ever so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn." - William Penn

MonroeMonkey

  • Guest
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #189 on: July 30, 2012, 02:32:19 PM »

I've already countered many of Hovind's claims and the evidences and explanations I've shared void many of his other arguments. His arguments are odd, for example, he claims polonium halos prove a young earth; BUT scientists point out they could very well be uranium halos and Hovind and Gentry cannot demonstrate these are even polonium halos. So, easy...



Did everyone notice how Less REFUSES to address my argument about Coral, Tide Friction, and dating?

HE CAN'T. He's lost so badly. Now all he can do is rage.  ;D
Logged

jbs49238

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #190 on: July 30, 2012, 03:46:52 PM »

How is coral reliable when it has changed in at account of a "year" so dramatically?

365, 380, 400... which is it?  That more than a 10% margin of error which would put it greatly outside of anything accepted as scientific "proof"!  Tree rings are not good measures of anything either, only time... recorded time is THE BEST indicator of what has happened.  You don't have to buy it all as fact, but it is highly more reliable than coming up with a hypothesis about something you think occured, making it your baseline and then judging everything that happens now against it.
Logged

MonroeMonkey

  • Guest
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #191 on: July 30, 2012, 03:55:06 PM »

How is coral reliable when it has changed in at account of a "year" so dramatically?

365, 380, 400... which is it?  That more than a 10% margin of error which would put it greatly outside of anything accepted as scientific "proof"! 

Huh? It didn't change drastically. That was the point.

Tide friction slows the Earth's rotation at a fairly consistent rate. When you do the mathematics, there should have been about 380 days in a year 200 million years ago, and about 400 days in a year 400 million years ago.

When we exam coral found in igneous rocks that date 400 million years old they show 400 days in a year, and the coral found in 200 million year old rock show about 380 days in a year.

This shows a slow gradual change. And you never find 400 day coral with 380 day coral or 365 day coral. The global flood cannot account for this. It reasonable disproves a global flood, for if the flood happened the change would have been drastic and there should be 400 day, 380, and 365 fossilized together.


Quote
Tree rings are not good measures of anything either, only time... recorded time is THE BEST indicator of what has happened.  You don't have to buy it all as fact, but it is highly more reliable than coming up with a hypothesis about something you think occured, making it your baseline and then judging everything that happens now against it.

Tree rings are only used to factor in fluctuations of c-14 in the atmosphere.

Hovind makes the argument that because the c-14 in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium and moving toward it, that the Earth must be younger than 30,000 years, BUT scientists in this field explain how the c-14 in the atmosphere can reach equilibrium only to be punctuated out of equilibrium, after which it moves back towards equilibrium. Scientists in this field explain how the c-14 of the atmosphere has reached equilibrium many times, only to be punctuated.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 03:56:43 PM by Xerxes »
Logged

LessGovernment

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1264
  • "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom"
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #192 on: July 30, 2012, 04:04:36 PM »

"could very well be" is NOT definitive proof....or, is it.

"don't look at ANY of Hovind's stuff, don't READ that Less is talking LOGIC with respect to explaining the ORIGIN of life and the universe which cannot be explained within the natural elements themselves, ignore the REASONABLE point of view that all the complexities we see around us are EVIDENCE of a designer....just trash on Less and dismiss his Creator/flood point of view because he won't do what I say it fall into my traps I lay for creationists since I sit on the computer and bash Christians 20 hours/day"

The Devonian layer of strata in Pennsylvania, Scotland, and parts of Canada is DEFINITIVELY 345-405 million years old...and Hovind's little 6 minute explanation of dating methods in the video embedded earlier is VOID of truth, and when Steven Jay Gould writes a book and strings two FISH together(saying one evolved into another over a period of 20 million years, over 370 million years ago - even though both species are still alive today), any Christian is delusional and has a mental disorder if they believe God made those species(and the "transitional" one they found) just the way we found their fossils in the same rock layer?

Don't question the government paid EXPERTS and their government funded rhetoric and imaginations!!!

Still TWO theories about ORIGINS...how long did it take for the lobe-finned fish(that contains the blue print for the human hand, that showed itself better in the mudskipper that appeard 20 million years later) to evolve from that piece of protoplasm that created itself from non-living rocks that were rained upon for millions of years, billions of years ago?
Logged
"Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad; if it be ill, they will cure it. But, if men be bad, let the government be ever so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn." - William Penn

jbs49238

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #193 on: July 30, 2012, 04:19:28 PM »

So Xerxes, your argument is that the earth will one day stop?

If tidal friction affects earth rotation it would follw that the earth does not rotate at a static speed throughout the day, since water is NOT equally distributed across the earth then right?
Logged

MonroeMonkey

  • Guest
Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
« Reply #194 on: July 30, 2012, 05:02:22 PM »

So Xerxes, your argument is that the earth will one day stop?

If tidal friction affects earth rotation it would follw that the earth does not rotate at a static speed throughout the day, since water is NOT equally distributed across the earth then right?

Let's do the math.

The Earth dates at about 4.3 to 4.5 billion years, the Sun is close in age. It's believed by scientists that the Sun is halfway through its life cycle before it red dwarfs, and boils the oceans, making Earth a lifeless space rock.

To quote Professor of Biology Jerry Coyne and John Wells, "Each day - one revolution of the Earth - is a tiny bit longer than the last one. Not that you would notice: to be precise, the length of a day increases by about two seconds every 100,000 years. Since the duration of a year - the time it takes the Earth to circle the Sun - doesn’t change over time, this means that the number of days per year must be decreasing over time. From the known rate of slowing, Wells calculated that when his corals were alive - 380 million years ago according to radiometric dating - and each year would have contained about 396 days, each 22 hours long. Wells found that they experienced about 400 days per year, which means that each day was 21.9 hours long. That’s only a tiny deviation from the predicted 22 hours. " End Quote.

Again, coral from 200 million years old show around 380 days in year.

If there were 400 days in a year 400 million years ago, and 380 about 200 million years ago, then in 4.3 to 4.5 billion years, when the Sun red dwarfs, the Earth's rotation would have reached or about have reached an equilibrium. A fitting time to boil the oceans, eh?



Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 16   Go Up