23 Nov 04
1 edit
If creationism is a valid scientific theory, there must be valid scientific evidence for it. Every discussion I have seen so far, creationists do not put up this evidence but bring up what they see as the flaws of evolution.
Is it possible to give a scientific explanation for the millions of different species on this planet and the genetic similarities between them from a creationist standpoint?
Do creationists believe it is possible for animals to change in function and structure over many gernerations?
What is the creationist view on the age of the world and how do they date it?
How do creationists explain fossils - including rock layers with thousands of dinosaur but no modern mammal fossils ?
Two things are banned from this thread - religion because we are discussing the scientific basis of creationism and evolution - because no amount of discrediting one theory proves another.
Any takers?
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by steerpikeI'll answer your quesitons tomorrow, time for bed now.
If creationism is a valid scientific theory, there must be valid scientific evidence for it. Every discussion I have seen so far, creationists do not put up this evidence but bring up what they see as the flaws of evolution.
Is it possible to give a scientific explanation for the millions of different species on this planet and the genetic similaritie ...[text shortened]... nism and evolution - because no amount of discrediting one theory proves another.
Any takers?
Kelly
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by steerpikeWho has told you creationism is a valid scientific theory? Creation is
If creationism is a valid scientific theory, there must be valid scientific evidence for it. Every discussion I have seen so far, creationists do not put up this evidence but bring up what they see as the flaws of evolution.
Is it possible to give a scientific explanation for the millions of different species on this planet and the genetic similaritie ...[text shortened]... nism and evolution - because no amount of discrediting one theory proves another.
Any takers?
an event while evolution is supposedly a process that was, is, and will
always be occurring throughout life’s existence. Seeing how again
creation was an event I am not sure any explanation is possible that
would fit what anyone could call a scientific explanation. As far as
similarities are concern, they were designed the same way. All life as
we see was made by one source God and He used the same method
to continue life through time. Yes, I do believe they can change but
not turn into something something completely different like a blade of
grass into an elephant through the time line. I believe this would vary
from creationist to creationist. I believe in a young earth, but I do not
think I am in the majority. I think if you look at the dates with
scripture, you will see it is only a few thousand years old, while others
like the gap theory and date it billions of years old. So it depends as
far as I can say. I again will speak for just myself, but I believe that
most fossils were made about the same time, caused by the same
event. An event that caught many creatures completely by surprise
which was Noah’s flood. Since this was a cause many creature to be
buried right where they were creatures that did not hand around one
another would not likely be found next to each other.
I just saw your last line to this thread. I guess this is as far as I go. I
do not believe creation can be proven through any scientific basis,
only supported when we look into ID. I also think that discrediting TOE
strengthens ID since I do not think TOE can get us where we are today
from old dead dirt.
Kelly
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by KellyJayThe earth is a few thousand years old? Carbon dating doesn't work then?
Who has told you creationism is a valid scientific theory? Creation is
an event while evolution is supposedly a process that was, is, and will
always be occurring throughout life’s existence. Seeing how again
creation was an event I am not sure any explanation is possible that
would fit what anyone could call a scientific explanation. As far as
similar ...[text shortened]... engthens ID since I do not think TOE can get us where we are today
from old dead dirt.
Kelly
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by KellyJayYou "believe"? Is this something you're taking on faith? Once again, you're only acknowledging evidence which seems to support your pre-made conclusion. Your conclusion requires radio-carbon dating to be wrong, so you only take into account reports which claim to show that radio-carbon dating is wrong.
I believe even the guy who came up with carbon dating said it was
only acturate up to a few thousand years, beyond that you are looking
at errors.
Kelly
When radio-carbon dating was first introduced in the late 1940s, many results were innacurate due to past fluctuations in cosmic ray activity. There is now a dendrochronological calibration procedure which is applied to radio carbon dates which makes it much more accurate. But the system can only be used on items that are less than 40,000 years old. Quite a bit more than the "few thousand" you pulled off the top of your head.
But radio carbon dating is not the only method archaeologists use. Other dating systems include the potassium-argon dating method, and thermoluminescence dating. The potassium-argon method was used to establish the dates for stone tools and hominid remains at Olduvai Gorge, for example. These systems all used in conjunction point to a world significantly older than the bible suggests.
If you consult a simple book on Archaeology, like I did, instead of falling back on the bible for everything, you might actually learn something new once in a while.
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by rwingettI thought we told you to burn all them books but the Bible, Rob?
You "believe"? Is this something you're taking on faith? Once again, you're only acknowledging evidence which seems to support your pre-made conclusion. Your conclusion requires radio-carbon dating to be wrong, so you only take into account reports which claim to show that radio-carbon dating is wrong.
When radio-carbon dating was first introduced i ...[text shortened]... lling back on the bible for everything, you might actually learn something new once in a while.
It's going to be mandatory after they pass the Patriot Act II anyway so you might as well get a heads up.
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by rwingettSo tell me, how do you know all your dating methods are correct?
You "believe"? Is this something you're taking on faith? Once again, you're only acknowledging evidence which seems to support your pre-made conclusion. Your conclusion requires radio-carbon dating to be wrong, so you only take into account reports which claim to show that radio-carbon dating is wrong.
When radio-carbon dating was first introduced i ...[text shortened]... lling back on the bible for everything, you might actually learn something new once in a while.
They suit your preconceived ideas on how old the earth is, does
that have anything to do with it? It isn’t like you have known
items that are actually without a doubt known to be 40 thousand
years old, let alone a few million or billion years old. So you have
several different tests, all of them are saying something that cannot
be verified with a known item that is 40 thousand years old, or
several million or billion years old. You accept them on faith, because
there is no way to show these tests false, accept with another test
that faces the very same limitations as all of those tests. They cannot
be verified on a known item that old. You basically are buying into
a modern version of watching someone throw chicken bones on a
animal skin and telling you the results. You cannot verify anything
they tell you accept with another bag of bones being thrown on another
animal skin.
Kelly
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI doubt that too, but they do claim somewhere down the line they
I doubt any evolutionists claim elephants came from grass.
were once a simple cell or something along those lines, as all life
grass and elephants included. If evolution is true, then without a
doubt grass and elephants shared an ancestor. Besides, how do
you know that isn’t the case if evolution is true?
Kelly
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by KellyJayHand copying a long text such as the bible will only be accurate for about five copies. After that you will only be looking at errors.
I believe even the guy who came up with carbon dating said it was
only acturate up to a few thousand years, beyond that you are looking
at errors.
Kelly