Comments | ill_be_ur_pal: Creationist vs Logic, errr, Geologist

ill_be_ur_pal

Creationist vs Logic, errr, Geologist

Oct 09, 2006 11:41

In the perfect forum of a debate on evolution, Noah's flood, and geology, by which this forum is a fantasy football message board, came my friend's Steve hypothesis that Noah's flood was caused by the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. He also took a critical view on geologist. So I relayed the post to my geology friend Tim(Fridge) who is also a ( Read more... )

Comments 64

Response anonymous October 9 2006, 20:05:05 UTC

Excellent, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll do my best to hit on all of your questions / comments ( ... )

Re: Response 2 anonymous October 9 2006, 20:06:35 UTC

"5 Just like with evolution, there is no great scientific debate on the subject of radiometric dating. Some scientists might have debate various points on the subject, but it is not debated whether evolution takes place and it is not debated whether radiometric dating can provide good estimates on the dates of various objects ( ... )

Re: I really should have proofread anonymous October 9 2006, 20:51:57 UTC

In addition to the poor spelling, I need to correct a sentence. In regards to speciation being proven but not one species evolving into another, I meant to say one species eveolving into a new species that would then be catogorized in a different family.

Re: Response 2 anonymous October 10 2006, 23:32:20 UTC

I did not say that evolution was fact. The theory of evolution is just like all other scientific theories which seek to explain natural phenomena. One FACT that this theory is based of off is that the fossil record does not show a consistent biota over time. Now if you refuse to believe that fossils represent the remains of once living creature, you’ll obviously dismiss the rest. Darwin’s mechanism for producing different creatures might not be right, but something must produced the observed differences unless they just *poof* came to be there ( ... )

Thread 28

Holy Crap anonymous October 12 2006, 16:48:34 UTC

Wow! That is a lot of comments. I have not actually read any of them, but its always nice to have a lot of comments, so here is one more.

Re: Holy Crap anonymous October 13 2006, 03:05:19 UTC

“This is simply incorrect. In chemistry experiments we can control the inputs, outputs, and variables along the way. In radioisotope dating of rocks to detrmine their age, we don't know what all of the inputs were nor do we know all of the variables that affected these rocks over the years.” Wrong again. What is locked within crystals is either the original input or the product of the original input. Specimens can easily be examined for evidence that it might have been raised above the locking temperature for a particular isotope pair. If it has been, then this technique is not used. We do not know exactly what has effected the rock but studying it in its entirety allows for very educated guesses ( ... )

Re: Holy Crap anonymous October 13 2006, 03:05:42 UTC

“Those are rules for life stated in the old testament. The message of the new testament wasn't to live by such rules, it was to love and help your fellow man and to worship and repent to Jesus for dying for our sins. Jewish people don't believe in the new testament, so they still live by the rules set forth in the old testament.” So you basically don’t believe the Bible, just what parts you like? Your statement means one of to things: either God just decided to start behaving in an entirely different fashion, or the writers of the old testament grossly mischaracterized any stories which they told ( ... )

Re: Holy Crap anonymous October 13 2006, 04:50:19 UTC

"The fossil record does indeed contain examples of the “missing links” creationists like to claim are not there ( ... )

Thread 36