1 edit
Originally posted by beatlemaniaShow me your proof of creationism. Dont cite the bible which is nothing more than a book.
There is no truth in evolution! its not even a theory,its just a hypothesis, theories need facts, and evolution doesn't have any!
This should be simple for a person of your vast knowledge. Do it.
1 edit
Originally posted by beatlemania1st question: they don't even know what they believe in so who knows
There is no truth in evolution! its not even a theory,its just a hypothesis, theories need facts, and evolution doesn't have any!
Perhaps you don't know the difference between weak and strong agnostics. Weak agnostics claim there is no evidence for or against the existance of God and therefore no reason to believe or disbelieve in him. Strong agnostics believe that and also that evidence for or against CANNOT exist by definition. So unless you can provide evidence that God exists (or doesn't exist) you cannot prove that weak agnostics are incorrect and if you can prove that such evidence COULD exist (even if currently doesn't) you could prove strong agnostics incorrect. Can you do either?
2nd question: the Flood caused the Grand Canyon when water covered the earth. try going out in your backyard and turn on your garden hose or facuet or whatever outside water source you have full blast and aim it at some patch of dirt and after 30-40 seconds turn it off and you ought to get a small hole. Couldn't an amount of water sufficent enough to cover all the mountains make the Grand Canyon?
No actually it couldn't. Here's a critical review of one of the books that claims that the Great Flood caused the Grand Canyon:
http://www.usd.edu/esci/creation/grandcyn.html
3rd question: 6,000 to 10,000 years old
So what of radiocarbon dating that states a much older Earth? What of the numerous other radioactive dating methods that agree with radiocarbon data and also show a (very) much older Earth (some dates going back over 3 billion years)?
4th question: duh!
Isn't faith by definition the belief in something without evidence? So if evidence were to exist how would one have faith?
5th question: let me put it bluntly: NO!!!!!
So evolution doesn't occur? What about the supposed Bird Flu epidemic that will soon be sweeping the world? What about these cases of observed speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
?
6th question: rock
Prove it.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ1. That is incredibly confusing. I hadn't heard about Agnostics until I came here.
[b]1st question: they don't even know what they believe in so who knows
Perhaps you don't know the difference between weak and strong agnostics. Weak agnostics claim there is no evidence for or against the existance of God and therefore no reason to believe or disbelieve in him. Strong agnostics believe that and also that evidence for or against CANNO ...[text shortened]... www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
?
6th question: rock
Prove it.[/b]
2. I read most of it. I think it says that this Austin guy didn't prove that it was. Just because this guy didn't prove it doesn't mean it's not true.
3. Radiocarbon Dating and all the other dating methods do not work. Their dates ranged between 8 million and 300 billion years.
4. You wouldn't need to have faith in anything but the history.
5. What does that have to do with it? I can say it was made of green chees that smells like limburger and tastes like provelone.
Originally posted by Acemaster3. Radiocarbon Dating and all the other dating methods [b]do not work. Their dates ranged between 8 million and 300 billion years.[/b]
1. That is incredibly confusing. I hadn't heard about Agnostics until I came here.
2. I read most of it. I think it says that this Austin guy didn't prove that it was. Just because this guy didn't prove it doesn't mean it's not true.
3. Radiocarbon Dating and all the other dating methods [b]do not work. Their dates ranged between 8 million ...[text shortened]... I can say it was made of green chees that smells like limburger and tastes like provelone.[/b]
This is a flagrant lie. For example, Zhang (2004) presents evidence from a dozen studies of the age of the earth, using 7 different, independent, methods with estimate the earth's age (well, the age of a solid crust, at least) to 4.53 billion years with an error of less than 2%.
Originally posted by Acemaster1. That is incredibly confusing. I hadn't heard about Agnostics until I came here.
1. That is incredibly confusing. I hadn't heard about Agnostics until I came here.
2. I read most of it. I think it says that this Austin guy didn't prove that it was. Just because this guy didn't prove it doesn't mean it's not true.
3. Radiocarbon Dating and all the other dating methods [b]do not work. Their dates ranged between 8 million ...[text shortened]... I can say it was made of green chees that smells like limburger and tastes like provelone.[/b]
Hey, it's not my fault you're ignorant.
2. I read most of it. I think it says that this Austin guy didn't prove that it was. Just because this guy didn't prove it doesn't mean it's not true.
Can you prove that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Great Flood? Hell, I'll settle for evidence that the Great Flood happened as written (covering the tallest mountain by 10 cubits).
3. Radiocarbon Dating and all the other dating methods [b]do not work. Their dates ranged between 8 million and 300 billion years.[/b]
Find a scientific source for a radioactive date of 300 billion years (it'd be difficult as the universe is only ~15 billion years old). And then show why radioactive dating is out by so many orders of magnitude.
4. You wouldn't need to have faith in anything but the history.
The history? You mean, that Jesus existed and was God's son and that the Earth was created 6000 years ago?
5. What does that have to do with it? I can say it was made of green chees that smells like limburger and tastes like provelone.
Humour me. It's an exercise in critical thought.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDid you say you were a professional?
Well, our time is up for today. In my professional opinion, you're suffering from a severely impoverished appreciation of nature and you're exhibiting a delusional failure in separating reality and fantasy. All things considered, I think the root of the problem is this: you're simply an idiot.
