How Creationists date rocks and fossils

How Creationists date rocks and fossils

Science

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
02 Jun 14

Originally posted by RJHinds
So most people believe that to evolve into a more complex organism an increase in genetic information is necessary because more complex organisms have more genetic information.
The debate isn't about "what most people believe".
"Most people" are almost as ignorant as you so their opinion is worthless.

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
02 Jun 14

Originally posted by RJHinds
... my wife and I have changed to different kinds because we can no longer breed.
The fact that you have offspring is strong evidence against a Creator.

h

Joined
06 Mar 12
Moves
642
02 Jun 14
1 edit

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The fact that you have offspring is strong evidence against a Creator.
The fact that he exists at all is proof against a Creator; why would a Creator want to create such horrible evil arrogant morons? So there could be a 9/11? Or just to piss off intelligent people? Unless this 'Creator' is himself an evil moron, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
02 Jun 14
1 edit

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The debate isn't about "what most people believe".
"Most people" are almost as ignorant as you so their opinion is worthless.
Is the following restatement on the subject more acceptable in the debate?

New genetic information is necessary to evolve into a more complex organism and generally that would assume an increase in genetic information.

If not, then how would you change it to an informed statement of the fact?

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
02 Jun 14

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The fact that you have offspring is strong evidence against a Creator.
How so, since we reproduced five times after our own kind?

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
05 Jun 14

Originally posted by RJHinds
How so, since we reproduced five times after our own kind?
After your own kind what?

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
05 Jun 14

Originally posted by sonhouse
After your own kind what?
Human beings.

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
05 Jun 14

Originally posted by RJHinds
How so, since we reproduced five times after our own kind?
If there was a creator, he would've made people smart enough not to believe in creationism.

h

Joined
06 Mar 12
Moves
642
05 Jun 14

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If there was a creator, he would've made people smart enough not to believe in creationism.
Therefore creationists are proof there is no creator.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
06 Jun 14
1 edit

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If there was a creator, he would've made people smart enough not to believe in creationism.
Only the numbnuts don't believe in creationism. Numbnuts are the ones with degenerated brains.

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
06 Jun 14

Originally posted by RJHinds
Only the numbnuts don't believe in creationism. Numbnuts are the ones with degenerated brains.
True. If only I had the mental capacity to grasp the infinite wisdom of a bunch of genocidal cavemen.

PDI

Joined
30 Sep 12
Moves
731
08 Jun 14

Mainstream science says the heavy elements in Earth are remnants of stellar explosions long ago.

RJ, given the position you have staked out, which of these two seems right to you?

1) It is NOT true that Earth's heavy elements are star remnants.
2) The stellar remnant scenario is true, with the understanding that all the contributing stars exploded less than 10,000 years ago.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
09 Jun 14

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Mainstream science says the heavy elements in Earth are remnants of stellar explosions long ago.

RJ, given the position you have staked out, which of these two seems right to you?

1) It is NOT true that Earth's heavy elements are star remnants.
2) The stellar remnant scenario is true, with the understanding that all the contributing stars exploded less than 10,000 years ago.
1) It is NOT true that Earth's heavy elements are star remnants.

F

Joined
11 Nov 05
Moves
43938
09 Jun 14

Originally posted by RJHinds
1) It is NOT true that Earth's heavy elements are star remnants.
So, scientifically speaking, where do the heavy elements come from?

Don't answer goddidit, because that is not a valid answer, scientifically.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
09 Jun 14
2 edits

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So, scientifically speaking, where do the heavy elements come from?

Don't answer goddidit, because that is not a valid answer, scientifically.
The heavy elements probably came from water. And heavy metal came from a mixture of rock, blues, and jazz with increased volume.