Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Example: Alligators. The same operational science is used to study them, obeserve them, make logical predictions about them it's just a different starting point. Evolutionists say they haven't changed for 200 million years (living fossil). Creationists say they look today pretty much like they did when they were created during creation week approximatley 6000 yrs. ago.
Actually, although Alligators have not changed their hunting habits or their techniques to kill prey their physical structure has changed quite considerably. The "Sarcosuchus imperator" or otherwise known as the SuperCroc weighed up to 10 tons and was approximately 40 feet long.
My personal opinion is that after the giant meteor that hit the earth 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs caused a variety of changes in the animal life that was once on earth. As a result of the meteor, a thick cloud of dust enveloped the earth for YEARS. A lot of plant life died as a result of the lack of sunlight. Giant herbivores such as the brontosaurus and stegosaurus weren't able to eat enough to fulfill their diet "quotum". As a result, animals were forced to either evolve by growing smaller and eating less food or perish. Most perished. But, what's amazing life is that it will find a way to survive. Certain species will evolve to fit their environment the best. So, in the case of the SuperCroc, it probably didn't have enough food to sustain itself and died off.
Also, that brings me up to another question. How do creationists feel about the giant crater of the big meteor that hit earth 65 million years ago? Do they believe it happened less than 6000 years ago even though any geologist will tell you otherwise?
Another thing. Most creationists want to dispute scientists beliefs in evolution. They think that the science of evolution is one faction of science that has a certain belief. The problem is that, we as evolutionists/atheists take ALL the factors of science into the equation not just ONE book. We use geology, paleontology, biology, zoology, oceanography, seismology, anatomy, physiology, and many others to base our decisions. There is no one branch of science that we use to base our decisions. In order for life to evolve it is a requirement and a necessity for all of the above sciences and many others to agree. You've heard the argument on here about dinosaurs walking with humans. Well, the sciences of paleontology, archaeology, and geology and probably more go into this. We know approximately what era certain bones (Paleontology/Archaeology) came from due to the sediments (Geology) they were found in. We also know this due to carbon and radioactive dating. A lot of naysayers don't believe in carbon or radioactive dating. A lot of Christians want to laugh at the Chinese farmer who put chicken bones on the bones of another animal because scientists bought it. Yeah, we bought it until we did the carbon and radioactive datings on them. It PROVED to us that it was indeed a farce. Same with the Scopes Trial. If we were trying to pull the wool over your eyes we would have told you we found the bones with the answers to everything already. This is not what we are doing. We base our decisions off of what we already know by using the scientific method. To doubt scientists as people trying to put doubt in the minds of Christians I feel sorry for your naievity and ignorance.
Actually, although Alligators have not changed their hunting habits or their techniques to kill prey their physical structure has changed quite considerably. The "Sarcosuchus imperator" or otherwise known as the SuperCroc weighed up to 10 tons and was approximately 40 feet long..
This is an example of adaptation, not evolution. It's still an alligator/crocodile, just smaller
Quote:
My personal opinion is that after the giant meteor that hit the earth 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs caused a variety of changes in the animal life that was once on earth. As a result of the meteor, a thick cloud of dust enveloped the earth for YEARS. A lot of plant life died as a result of the lack of sunlight. Giant herbivores such as the brontosaurus and stegosaurus weren't able to eat enough to fulfill their diet "quotum". As a result, animals were forced to either evolve by growing smaller and eating less food or perish. Most perished. But, what's amazing life is that it will find a way to survive. Certain species will evolve to fit their environment the best. So, in the case of the SuperCroc, it probably didn't have enough food to sustain itself and died off.
Also, that brings me up to another question. How do creationists feel about the giant crater of the big meteor that hit earth 65 million years ago? Do they believe it happened less than 6000 years ago even though any geologist will tell you otherwise?.
The age of rocks is calculated using assuptions about the past that they cannot prove. They "date" the rocks, get a range of dates and pick the one they feel is closest to what they want/need and disregard the rest. There is no proof that dinosaurs were killed off by a giant meteor, this is a hypothesis based on current beliefs. And there are geologists who would dispute this. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/dino_meteor.asp (broken link)
Quote:
Another thing. Most creationists want to dispute scientists beliefs in evolution. They think that the science of evolution is one faction of science that has a certain belief. The problem is that, we as evolutionists/atheists take ALL the factors of science into the equation not just ONE book. We use geology, paleontology, biology, zoology, oceanography, seismology, anatomy, physiology, and many others to base our decisions. There is no one branch of science that we use to base our decisions. In order for life to evolve it is a requirement and a necessity for all of the above sciences and many others to agree. You've heard the argument on here about dinosaurs walking with humans. Well, the sciences of paleontology, archaeology, and geology and probably more go into this. We know approximately what era certain bones (Paleontology/Archaeology) came from due to the sediments (Geology) they were found in. We also know this due to carbon and radioactive dating. A lot of naysayers don't believe in carbon or radioactive dating. A lot of Christians want to laugh at the Chinese farmer who put chicken bones on the bones of another animal because scientists bought it. Yeah, we bought it until we did the carbon and radioactive datings on them. It PROVED to us that it was indeed a farce. Same with the Scopes Trial. If we were trying to pull the wool over your eyes we would have told you we found the bones with the answers to everything already. This is not what we are doing. We base our decisions off of what we already know by using the scientific method. To doubt scientists as people trying to put doubt in the minds of Christians I feel sorry for your naievity and ignorance.
I am not naive or ignorant, but apparently you are close-minded to the other possibilities out there under all these areas of science. Evolutionists use the scientific method in all these areas but with the preconception that evolution is already fact and true and their discoveries are used to fit the evolution framework, again in every area of science, because they already believe it should. If it doesn't fit, they come up with some fancy excuse as to why it's an anomaly.
But every area of science can (and is) approached from the different viewpoint of creationism by other scientists. There are scientists in every field of science you mentioned who are creationsists. They are the minority, yes. But that doesn't mean they're wrong. They use the same scientific methods to study the areas you've mentioned, but with a different starting point and their results are more readily agreeable with the Biblical account than trying to shoe-horn them into the evoutionary framework.
I don't doubt true operational science.. but again, evolution is not operational science.
This is an example of adaptation, not evolution. It's still an alligator/crocodile, just smaller
The age of rocks is calculated using assuptions about the past that they cannot prove. They "date" the rocks, get a range of dates and pick the one they feel is closest to what they want/need and disregard the rest. There is no proof that dinosaurs were killed off by a giant meteor, this is a hypothesis based on current beliefs. And there are geologists who would dispute this. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/dino_meteor.asp (broken link)
I am not naive or ignorant, but apparently you are close-minded to the other possibilities out there under all these areas of science. Evolutionists use the scientific method in all these areas but with the preconception that evolution is already fact and true and their discoveries are used to fit the evolution framework, again in every area of science, because they already believe it should. If it doesn't fit, they come up with some fancy excuse as to why it's an anomaly.
But every area of science can (and is) approached from the different viewpoint of creationism by other scientists. There are scientists in every field of science you mentioned who are creationsists. They are the minority, yes. But that doesn't mean they're wrong. They use the same scientific methods to study the areas you've mentioned, but with a different starting point and their results are more readily agreeable with the Biblical account than trying to shoe-horn them into the evoutionary framework.
I don't doubt true operational science.. but again, evolution is not operational science.
LOL! Alright, my fingers are cramping up and we aren't getting anywhere on either side. I will agree to disagree with you.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,427 times
Reputation: 3540
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
I am scared that there is some lunatic God that would condone the murder of innocent men, women and children for centuries but says that he loves me.
The only time the God of the Bible ordered the killing of "innocent" people was during the conquest of the Promised Land. That was for a specific time and a specific piece of land. In fact, the inhabitants of this land were to be driven out; if they chose not to go, then they would, indeed, be destroyed. The reputation of the Israelites and the power of their God preceded them, and the inhabitants of the land were fearful of them; however, they opted to stay and fight rather than leave ahead of time. This was a war to claim land; the war was not to convert people. The Israelites were told to destroy everything in the cities so they would not be led astray by what was there; unfortunately, this included the people who chose to stay and fight. The Israelites were to be a separate people, abiding in a separate place. Within these confines, they were expected to live peaceably with their neighbors; however, if the neighbors invaded the Promised Land, the Israelites were, indeed, trained for war. Again, this was to retain a specific piece of land, not to convert the surrounding nations.
As far as the "murder of innocent people," these people were not innocent in God's eyes. He said this was happening to them because of their evil ways.
The God of the Bible has never condoned the murder of innocent people. In fact, when Christians were told to go into the world and preach the gospel, they were also told to shake the dust off their feet and move on if the people did not accept the Word being brought to them.
As far as what has happened historically in the name of Christ, Jesus himself said many would come to him on Judgment Day and say "didn't I do <such and such> for you?" His answer will be, "Depart from Me, for I never knew you."
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,427 times
Reputation: 3540
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy
There is zero scientific evidence that supports creationism, I mean absolutely none, that's why scientists and teachers get so disgusted with this sort of thing because it attempts to make it appear like legitimate science is being pursued when in fact it's a total fraud.
Methinks thou dost proclaim thy ignorance.
Then again, I guess it depends on what you consider scientific proof. The fact is, the creationist scientists use the same data that the evolutionary scientists do. They just choose to interpret the data differently. However, you can't say they're not scientists, nor can you say they don't follow the scientific method.
Then again, I guess it depends on what you consider scientific proof.
I consider it to be physical evidence such as the fossil record, DNA studies and input from a variety of other fields like geology and astronomy which blow the 6,000 year old earth story out of the water. Let me ask you this. If you believe in the Adam and Eve story do you have any evidence that God reached into Adam's chest and pulled out a chunk of rib, then did something magical to it and presto, it turned into a full grown woman? That's quite a tall tale and something as astounding as this would require some serious scientific data to back it up. Obviously creationists do not follow the scientific method and cannot produce any evidence of this event or any of the other miraculous events that supposed occured during "creation week" as another post called it (sounds like a weeklong festival of some sort).
The starting point in any scientific endeavor is observation. If someone uses a different starting point, it's not science.
In my post where I stated "different starting point" I meant to convey a different worldview, a different presupposition. Example: Evolutionists begin with the presupposition that all life came from random chance happenings and Creationists begin with the presupposition that all life came from God.
I consider it to be physical evidence such as the fossil record, DNA studies and input from a variety of other fields like geology and astronomy which blow the 6,000 year old earth story out of the water. Let me ask you this. If you believe in the Adam and Eve story do you have any evidence that God reached into Adam's chest and pulled out a chunk of rib, then did something magical to it and presto, it turned into a full grown woman? That's quite a tall tale and something as astounding as this would require some serious scientific data to back it up. Obviously creationists do not follow the scientific method and cannot produce any evidence of this event or any of the other miraculous events that supposed occured during "creation week" as another post called it (sounds like a weeklong festival of some sort).
The fossil record can be interpreted differently. There is not one conclusive transition fossil. The handfull (out of milliions of fossils available) are very much debatable as to whether they are transition fossils or not.
Astronomy - actually disproves evolution in many respects, including the planet Mercury itself. Mercury just shouldn't be if you follow the evolution pardigm. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/mercury.asp & http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp (broken link)
So my believing in what you call a "tall tale" of how man/woman were created is much more palletable than believing in the "tall tale" of molecules-to-man evolution. Creationists do use scientific method, same as evolutionists. And, BTW, there is no scientific data that shows how life arose from non-life. There's plenty of data to show the failure of this, but not the success of it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
