Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204731 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#113012 May 20, 2014
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
So do you love salad with walnuts?
Yes, I love salad (full stop)

Rocket, avocado and walnut

Goats cheese, warm fig and walnut

Waldorf Salad

And more.

And date and walnut loaf – try this

8 oz self-raising flour (227g)
1oz margarine (28g)
8oz stoned dates chopped (227g)
2oz walnuts chopped (58g)
1 teaspoon bicarbonate of soda
1 teacupful boiling water-left to cool
1 egg lightly beaten
4oz brown sugar (113g)

Rub the margarine into the flour to resemble fine breadcrumbs.
Add the sugar, chopped walnuts and beaten egg. Mix well
Add the dates and the bicarbonate of soda. Mix well
Bake in a well greased 1lb loaf tin at approx. 175C.(4 gas) for about one hour.
Place a finger on top of the loaf and press lightly. If it springs back the loaf is ready.
Leave on a wire rack until the loaf is cold.
It is a lot easier to cut if you leave the loaf until the next day-enjoy.
Not uneducated

Omaha, NE

#113013 May 20, 2014
Sick of Stupid wrote:
In high school science there should be no talk of creationism. It is not science. Evolution, believe it or not is science. Creationism is a Christian MYTH. Creationism should be taught is high school. In history class, along with all the other mythology attached to other religions.
The story of Adam and Eve is no different than the stories of Greek mythology.
The Holy Bible, especially the Old Testament is a collection of Myths.
Moses parting the Red Sea...Myth
Noah and the Ark...Myth
Sodom and Gamora...Myth
Adam and Eve...Myth
Etc, Etc...
That is not to say the Bible is all myths, there are of course the gospels of the disiples, eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus, andthe same can be said for most other religions practiced today, mostly myth, and some historical accuracy.
Christian Mythology does not belong in a science class.
To start off with, you gave no evidence that those are myths.

Next, I am a young-earth creationist,(I wont go in to the massive reasons why) but I believe that the schools should teach evolution AND creation evenly and unbiased to either. Then the student can choose for themselves. Instead of stuffing it down their throat that evolution is true, we teach them both and let them decide.

I would also like to point out that you refer to science as opposed to creationism. Creationism is science. We may differ in views, but evolution is a scientific theory; creationism is scientific theory. Neither can be fully proven. Ever. They thought spontaneous generation was proven and obviously it wasnt. Evolutionists have made some great discoveries. But may I remind or inform you that so have creationists. Just as many. In fact, many of the great scientist have been creationists.

Next, you call it mythology, but mythology doesn't hold water and doesn't last. Creationism has been around for over a thousand years. That's not mythology. I agree thats not great proof, but just one beginning statement.

To follow up what I just said, the scientific method has never been proven wrong: Observations, Hypothesis, Lots of Experiments, Theory, Generations of Data, Law. Right? Well, a theory as big as the Theory if Evolution should have been tested for hundreds of years,consistently. Even it has(which is debatable), it needs more evidence to be considered a Law, a whole lot more. Creationism, like I said cant be proven, but there has been a lot more scientists and a lot more time.

Lastly, don't quote rock dating at me. It has been proven inaccurate over and over. I don't have time to go into it; but go to the Institute for Creation Research's website or Answers in Genesis's website and find it there.

I won't go into proving your statements wrong, it would take too much time and you probably wouldn't listen anyway. I just want to open your eyes and show that we aren't all Bible thumping idiots. It is despicable how few Christians know the Genesis story and the evidence behind it. But still, some of us are well-educated, and so I ask that you use real evidence. Sorry if anywhere I was unclear. Thanks for reading.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113014 May 20, 2014
Not uneducated wrote:
<quoted text>To start off with, you gave no evidence that those are myths.

Next, I am a young-earth creationist,(I wont go in to the massive reasons why) but I believe that the schools should teach evolution AND creation evenly and unbiased to either. Then the student can choose for themselves. Instead of stuffing it down their throat that evolution is true, we teach them both and let them decide.

I would also like to point out that you refer to science as opposed to creationism. Creationism is science. We may differ in views, but evolution is a scientific theory; creationism is scientific theory. Neither can be fully proven. Ever. They thought spontaneous generation was proven and obviously it wasnt. Evolutionists have made some great discoveries. But may I remind or inform you that so have creationists. Just as many. In fact, many of the great scientist have been creationists.

Next, you call it mythology, but mythology doesn't hold water and doesn't last. Creationism has been around for over a thousand years. That's not mythology. I agree thats not great proof, but just one beginning statement.

To follow up what I just said, the scientific method has never been proven wrong: Observations, Hypothesis, Lots of Experiments, Theory, Generations of Data, Law. Right? Well, a theory as big as the Theory if Evolution should have been tested for hundreds of years,consistently. Even it has(which is debatable), it needs more evidence to be considered a Law, a whole lot more. Creationism, like I said cant be proven, but there has been a lot more scientists and a lot more time.

Lastly, don't quote rock dating at me. It has been proven inaccurate over and over. I don't have time to go into it; but go to the Institute for Creation Research's website or Answers in Genesis's website and find it there.

I won't go into proving your statements wrong, it would take too much time and you probably wouldn't listen anyway. I just want to open your eyes and show that we aren't all Bible thumping idiots. It is despicable how few Christians know the Genesis story and the evidence behind it. But still, some of us are well-educated, and so I ask that you use real evidence. Sorry if anywhere I was unclear. Thanks for reading.
Please give us your BEST piece of evidence for a Young-Earth Creation (YEC).

Note: Reference to the Bible is not evidence.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113015 May 20, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the evidence:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113016 May 20, 2014
Not uneducated wrote:
I am a young-earth creationist
Then you chose the wrong moniker.
Not uneducated wrote:
I believe that the schools should teach evolution AND creation evenly and unbiased to either.
Fine. Evolution passes the scientific method and invisible Jew wizards don't. Now we can continue with biology.

Besides, creationism is illegal to teach and evolution isn't.
Not uneducated wrote:
Then the student can choose for themselves.
Ah yes, because that's how it really works - kids decide on what the right answers are in every lesson, hence they never fail or are marked wrong. And scientists don't decide on what is and what isn't science, kids do that!
Not uneducated wrote:
creationism is scientific theory.
Then just give us one experiment that demonstrates the existence of Godmagic.
Not uneducated wrote:
Evolutionists have made some great discoveries. But may I remind or inform you that so have creationists. Just as many. In fact, many of the great scientist have been creationists.
Wrong. Not one scientist has ever demonstrated Godmagic. Ergo they were not using creationism when they made discoveries, no matter how much they personally believed that God was responsible for whatever they discovered.
Not uneducated wrote:
Next, you call it mythology, but mythology doesn't hold water and doesn't last.
Of course it does. You think EVERY other religion is mythology. They're here too. Obviously they last, for cultural reasons. Not science.
Not uneducated wrote:
Creationism has been around for over a thousand years.
Longer.
Not uneducated wrote:
That's not mythology.
Other religions lasted longer. You call them myth.
Not uneducated wrote:
Well, a theory as big as the Theory if Evolution should have been tested for hundreds of years,consistently.
150. Ish.
Not uneducated wrote:
Even it has(which is debatable)
No it isn't. Hasn't been since 1953 at the latest. Catch up.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113017 May 20, 2014
Not uneducated wrote:
it needs more evidence to be considered a Law
Scientific theories are NEVER "proven" to become "laws". Take Newton's Law. Replaced by Einstein's THEORY of Relativity.

Obviously you don't know how science works and why the concept of falsification is a requirement. See now why you should change your moniker?
Not uneducated wrote:
Creationism, like I said cant be proven, but there has been a lot more scientists and a lot more time.
And zero in the way of scientific discoveries demonstrating creationism.

You know this. That's why you had to specifically state you were a YEC even though the consensus is the Earth is old.
Not uneducated wrote:
Lastly, don't quote rock dating at me. It has been proven inaccurate over and over.
Wrong. AIG lied to you. It's only inaccurate when fundies use it.
Not uneducated wrote:
I don't have time to go into it; but go to the Institute for Creation Research's website or Answers in Genesis's website and find it there.
We've been there more times than you. We know our position better than you. And we know your position better than you. Your position is wrong, period.
Not uneducated wrote:
I won't go into proving your statements wrong
Then all you are doing is making baseless assertions without backing yourself up.
Not uneducated wrote:
it would take too much time and you probably wouldn't listen anyway.
Ah, but we would - IF you have evidence. But you know you don't have it because you know you're wrong. So you only want to preach.
Not uneducated wrote:
I just want to open your eyes and show that we aren't all Bible thumping idiots.
Uh... then sorry to say bub, but you failed.

Spectacularly.
Not uneducated wrote:
It is despicable how few Christians know the Genesis story and the evidence behind it.
Ah yes, but you have the special decoder ring which makes you the best Bibical scholar out there!
Not uneducated wrote:
But still, some of us are well-educated, and so I ask that you use real evidence.
We do. Have done for years. So far not one fundie on the planet has been able to deal with it.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#113018 May 20, 2014
Not uneducated wrote:
<quoted text>
To start off with, you gave no evidence that those are myths.
Next, I am a young-earth creationist,(I wont go in to the massive reasons why) but I believe that the schools should teach evolution AND creation evenly and unbiased to either. Then the student can choose for themselves. Instead of stuffing it down their throat that evolution is true, we teach them both and let them decide.
I would also like to point out that you refer to science as opposed to creationism. Creationism is science. We may differ in views, but evolution is a scientific theory; creationism is scientific theory. Neither can be fully proven. Ever. They thought spontaneous generation was proven and obviously it wasnt. Evolutionists have made some great discoveries. But may I remind or inform you that so have creationists.
…
DNA disproves the story of Adam and Eve – That is the exact same evidence that you are 100% certain of when used to convict a criminal to execution. I find it strange that you will accept DNA evidence as a source for something you agree with but deny its voracity in anything that disproves your faith.

There is no doubt that many of the OT stories are adaptations of earlier beliefs. The evidence is in the fact that these stories pre-date the babble

There is no evidence that Moses existed, never mind being in Egypt or escaping by parting the red (or reed) sea. There is no evidence that Hebrews were slaves to Egypt. There is Evidence that the Hebrews were a warlike tribe living in the central Palestine area.

The ark story is not only myth it is impossible on at least 12 different counts not withstanding the impossibility of a vessel of the size described being built out of wood using todays modern technology, yet alone the technology available in the OT period. And the fact that about 120 billion times more water is needed to do as described than actually exists on the entire earth. And again DNA disproved the story.

It is fact that to convert carbon into sodium requires nuclear force on a per with an exploding star, no such star exploded within a distance close enough to converyt a person into salt yet remain visible as a pillar.

Please not that creationism is not science, creationism is speculation based on the mores of bronze age goat herders. The moment you can provide peer reviewed documentation capable of being falsified which validates your claims then you may call creationism a science, until then what you have is guesswork.

Please note that the creationist version of inaccuracy in “rock dating” is not scientific. Yes such dating has inaccuracies of between 5% and 0.01%, and even at the outside 5% of 3 or 4 billion years is accurate enough for general acceptance. However most dating is validated using other means that brings the wildest inaccuracy closer or less than 0.01% and when dealing in millions and even billions of years less than 0.01% is perfectly acceptable scientific error. This error is always documented, a device that you creatards jump on without proper understand of what it actually means.

Note the institute for creation research and answers in genesis etc have there own agenda for lying, and lying they do to promote their specious agenda. Try researching some real science sites like the perimeter institute, CERN and NASA rather than make it up to fit the stories and claim that it’s science sites toy seem to frequent.

You won’t go into proving Sick of Stupid’s statements wrong because you cannot prove those statements wrong.

You will of course ignore all the evidence presented here or even try to refute it with mumbo jumbo and more guesswork as is the usual way of the deliberately ignorant but that is entirely up to you.

Finally, would you please be good enough to put you money where your mouth is and give a short list of those great scientists you claim are creationist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113019 May 20, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Please give us your BEST piece of evidence for a Young-Earth Creation (YEC).
Note: Reference to the Bible is not evidence.
Unfortunately for him there is none. Scientific evidence simply does not matter one bit to his position.

Is the Earth young? Goddidit. Is it old? Goddidit. Is it young but just made to look old? Then God still did it. Hence it can make literally no scientific predictions. Which is why scientific evidence doesn't matter.

All they have after that is evolution iz rong therefore God musta dunnit. Which is a logical fallacy even if they were right about evolution.

Which they ain't.

Poor buggers.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#113020 May 20, 2014
Not uneducated wrote:
<quoted text>
To start off with, you gave no evidence that those are myths.
Next, I am a young-earth creationist,(I wont go in to the massive reasons why) but I believe that the schools should teach evolution AND creation evenly and unbiased to either. Then the student can choose for themselves. Instead of stuffing it down their throat that evolution is true, we teach them both and let them decide.
I would also like to point out that you refer to science as opposed to creationism. Creationism is science. We may differ in views, but evolution is a scientific theory; creationism is scientific theory. Neither can be fully proven. Ever. They thought spontaneous generation was proven and obviously it wasnt. Evolutionists have made some great discoveries. But may I remind or inform you that so have creationists. Just as many. In fact, many of the great scientist have been creationists.
Next, you call it mythology, but mythology doesn't hold water and doesn't last. Creationism has been around for over a thousand years. That's not mythology. I agree thats not great proof, but just one beginning statement.
To follow up what I just said, the scientific method has never been proven wrong: Observations, Hypothesis, Lots of Experiments, Theory, Generations of Data, Law. Right? Well, a theory as big as the Theory if Evolution should have been tested for hundreds of years,consistently. Even it has(which is debatable), it needs more evidence to be considered a Law, a whole lot more. Creationism, like I said cant be proven, but there has been a lot more scientists and a lot more time.
Lastly, don't quote rock dating at me. It has been proven inaccurate over and over. I don't have time to go into it; but go to the Institute for Creation Research's website or Answers in Genesis's website and find it there.
I won't go into proving your statements wrong, it would take too much time and you probably wouldn't listen anyway. I just want to open your eyes and show that we aren't all Bible thumping idiots. It is despicable how few Christians know the Genesis story and the evidence behind it. But still, some of us are well-educated, and so I ask that you use real evidence. Sorry if anywhere I was unclear. Thanks for reading.

Scientific laws describe an observation that never changes.
IE: the universal law of gravitation states.....

Any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

This is unchanging and therefore a law.

A Theory explains why things work, and can change if our understanding improves.

While the law of gravitation will always true "two bodies in the universe attract each other
with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

The explanation why (THEORY) can change, and has.
Hope that helps you ,
BTW evolution is pretty much a law, as it is an observation...
but we quit naming observations laws.
The ToE or Theory of Evolution is the explanation of Evolution.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113021 May 20, 2014
Not uneducated wrote:
<quoted text>
To start off with, you gave no evidence that those are myths.
Next, I am a young-earth creationist,(I wont go in to the massive reasons why) but I believe that the schools should teach evolution AND creation evenly and unbiased to either. Then the student can choose for themselves. Instead of stuffing it down their throat that evolution is true, we teach them both and let them decide.
I would also like to point out that you refer to science as opposed to creationism. Creationism is science. We may differ in views, but evolution is a scientific theory; creationism is scientific theory. Neither can be fully proven. Ever. They thought spontaneous generation was proven and obviously it wasnt. Evolutionists have made some great discoveries. But may I remind or inform you that so have creationists. Just as many. In fact, many of the great scientist have been creationists.
Next, you call it mythology, but mythology doesn't hold water and doesn't last. Creationism has been around for over a thousand years. That's not mythology. I agree thats not great proof, but just one beginning statement.
To follow up what I just said, the scientific method has never been proven wrong: Observations, Hypothesis, Lots of Experiments, Theory, Generations of Data, Law. Right? Well, a theory as big as the Theory if Evolution should have been tested for hundreds of years,consistently. Even it has(which is debatable), it needs more evidence to be considered a Law, a whole lot more. Creationism, like I said cant be proven, but there has been a lot more scientists and a lot more time.
Lastly, don't quote rock dating at me. It has been proven inaccurate over and over. I don't have time to go into it; but go to the Institute for Creation Research's website or Answers in Genesis's website and find it there.
I won't go into proving your statements wrong, it would take too much time and you probably wouldn't listen anyway. I just want to open your eyes and show that we aren't all Bible thumping idiots. It is despicable how few Christians know the Genesis story and the evidence behind it. But still, some of us are well-educated, and so I ask that you use real evidence. Sorry if anywhere I was unclear. Thanks for reading.
"Creationism is scientific theory"?{snicker} If so, where are the peer reviewed papers on the subject?

We've pretty well memorized the stuff from Institute for Creation Research's website and Answers in Genesis. Have you invested in a bullshit detector as yet?

"Not uneducated"? Seems otherwise.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113022 May 20, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
God does not believe in a creator. But he can't prove it.
And God Almighty is the creator. Where is your evidence countering this statement? None.
Go home. The world and all its elements never evolved by accident.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113023 May 20, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
3 it is known that no light existed for the first 350 to 400 thousand years after the universe began
I'm going to have to correct you on this one. You are probably thinking about the point when radiation (light) and matter decoupled, allowing the light to move through the matter and obtaining a transparent universe. That is the era when the background radiation was formed.

But light (electromagnetic waves) definitely existed prior to that. In fact, it dominated the energy density of the universe at that point (now dark energy does--for a while matter did).

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#113024 May 20, 2014
Not uneducated wrote:
<quoted text>
To start off with, you gave no evidence that those are myths.
Next, I am a young-earth creationist,(I wont go in to the massive reasons why) but I believe that the schools should teach evolution AND creation evenly and unbiased to either. Then the student can choose for themselves. Instead of stuffing it down their throat that evolution is true, we teach them both and let them decide.
I would also like to point out that you refer to science as opposed to creationism. Creationism is science. We may differ in views, but evolution is a scientific theory; creationism is scientific theory. Neither can be fully proven. Ever. They thought spontaneous generation was proven and obviously it wasnt. Evolutionists have made some great discoveries. But may I remind or inform you that so have creationists. Just as many. In fact, many of the great scientist have been creationists.
Next, you call it mythology, but mythology doesn't hold water and doesn't last. Creationism has been around for over a thousand years. That's not mythology. I agree thats not great proof, but just one beginning statement.
To follow up what I just said, the scientific method has never been proven wrong: Observations, Hypothesis, Lots of Experiments, Theory, Generations of Data, Law. Right? Well, a theory as big as the Theory if Evolution should have been tested for hundreds of years,consistently. Even it has(which is debatable), it needs more evidence to be considered a Law, a whole lot more. Creationism, like I said cant be proven, but there has been a lot more scientists and a lot more time.
Lastly, don't quote rock dating at me. It has been proven inaccurate over and over. I don't have time to go into it; but go to the Institute for Creation Research's website or Answers in Genesis's website and find it there.
I won't go into proving your statements wrong, it would take too much time and you probably wouldn't listen anyway. I just want to open your eyes and show that we aren't all Bible thumping idiots. It is despicable how few Christians know the Genesis story and the evidence behind it. But still, some of us are well-educated, and so I ask that you use real evidence. Sorry if anywhere I was unclear. Thanks for reading.
If you aren't going to support your assertions, why bother at all. Essentially, you offer nothing and then expect to have your nothing considered equally with the facts. I really don't feel the need to comment further.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#113025 May 20, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And God Almighty is the creator. Where is your evidence countering this statement? None.
Go home. The world and all its elements never evolved by accident.
Where is your evidence to confirm your statement that “God Almighty is the creator”?

Where is your evidence to confirm your statement that “The world and all its elements never evolved by accident”?

You have none, you will never have any evidence because there is no evidence to be had.

What you have is faith based on bronze age mythology.

And of course E=MC^2 is counter to the god described in KJV Revelation 19:6, and all it takes is one evidence compared to your zero.

You will of course either completely ignore that or deny it out of hand while using some consequences of that equation for post your denial.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#113026 May 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to have to correct you on this one. You are probably thinking about the point when radiation (light) and matter decoupled, allowing the light to move through the matter and obtaining a transparent universe. That is the era when the background radiation was formed.
But light (electromagnetic waves) definitely existed prior to that. In fact, it dominated the energy density of the universe at that point (now dark energy does--for a while matter did).
I apologise, I meant visible light as in absence of darkness.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113027 May 20, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the evidence:
Genesis Chapter 1: The Creation of Light
The Creation of Light
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Sorry, but that is nowhere close to being evidence. It is a myth written by humans to describe the world as they perceived it. It is counter to much that we know.

So let's go through some of the details, shall we?
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
OK, so there was water, and God was moving across the face of that water. Notice that there is no comment on where the water came from. Clearly,'the deep' describes the waters.

In other words, we have the common mythological viewpoint where the world was created from water (as opposed to some other myths that have it made from chaos). There is already a 'face' to the water, so the universe is already divided between part that is water and part that is not.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
In this light and darkness are both substances. Previously, there was only dark and now there is also light. They are separated and the light is called Day while the dark is called Night. This is also a very common mythological theme where Day and Night are seen as fundamental aspects of the universe as a whole, with half of the universe light and half dark. So, in this viewpoint, the sun is NOT what makes day versus night, but is a separate entity not directly related to the dark/light divide.

At this point in the creation story, we have water, light, and darkness. The water has a face and God is moving above the face.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day
Now we get a 'firmament' that is in the water and separates part of the water from another part of the water. There is water above that firmament and water below that firmament.

I want to point out that the *firmament* is called Heaven. This is another common myth from early societies. The idea is that the sky (heaven) is a dome above the earth. Until very recently, this dome was believed in and was thought to be solid. By the way, some translations use the word 'vault' instead of 'firmament'. They also replace the word 'heaven' with the word 'sky'. This is consistent with the idea of a solid dome over the earth.

I could go on and discuss how the water below heaven was gathered into one place for dry land to appear. In other words, the dry land was there already, but the water was moved aside so that it could appear. That is the formation of the earth.

Now, how exactly does this correspond to reality?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113028 May 20, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your evidence to confirm your statement that “God Almighty is the creator”?
Where is your evidence to confirm your statement that “The world and all its elements never evolved by accident”?
You have none, you will never have any evidence because there is no evidence to be had.
What you have is faith based on bronze age mythology.
And of course E=MC^2 is counter to the god described in KJV Revelation 19:6, and all it takes is one evidence compared to your zero.
You will of course either completely ignore that or deny it out of hand while using some consequences of that equation for post your denial.
And you have no evidence what so ever to counter the existence of a Maker. The universe is not made by man, then who then made it?
Nothing can make it/ his/ her self. Can you?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113029 May 20, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And God Almighty is the creator. Where is your evidence countering this statement? None.
Go home. The world and all its elements never evolved by accident.
"God Almighty" as described in the OT? You've got to be kidding.
Where is your evidence for your simplistically conceived and shoddily presented conclusions? Oh, the Bible. So the real answer is NONE. Go home.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113030 May 20, 2014
Not uneducated wrote:
<quoted text>
To start off with, you gave no evidence that those are myths.
Next, I am a young-earth creationist,(I wont go in to the massive reasons why) but I believe that the schools should teach evolution AND creation evenly and unbiased to either. Then the student can choose for themselves. Instead of stuffing it down their throat that evolution is true, we teach them both and let them decide.
I would also like to point out that you refer to science as opposed to creationism. Creationism is science. We may differ in views, but evolution is a scientific theory; creationism is scientific theory. Neither can be fully proven. Ever. They thought spontaneous generation was proven and obviously it wasnt. Evolutionists have made some great discoveries. But may I remind or inform you that so have creationists. Just as many. In fact, many of the great scientist have been creationists.
Next, you call it mythology, but mythology doesn't hold water and doesn't last. Creationism has been around for over a thousand years. That's not mythology. I agree thats not great proof, but just one beginning statement.
To follow up what I just said, the scientific method has never been proven wrong: Observations, Hypothesis, Lots of Experiments, Theory, Generations of Data, Law. Right? Well, a theory as big as the Theory if Evolution should have been tested for hundreds of years,consistently. Even it has(which is debatable), it needs more evidence to be considered a Law, a whole lot more. Creationism, like I said cant be proven, but there has been a lot more scientists and a lot more time.
Lastly, don't quote rock dating at me. It has been proven inaccurate over and over. I don't have time to go into it; but go to the Institute for Creation Research's website or Answers in Genesis's website and find it there.
I won't go into proving your statements wrong, it would take too much time and you probably wouldn't listen anyway. I just want to open your eyes and show that we aren't all Bible thumping idiots. It is despicable how few Christians know the Genesis story and the evidence behind it. But still, some of us are well-educated, and so I ask that you use real evidence. Sorry if anywhere I was unclear. Thanks for reading.
Quote, Rock dating! Unquote.

Rock dating!

I presume you mean radiometric dating.

Yes, "rock dating" is the ONLY reason that scientists know the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, and it was such a shock to them when rock dating first showed the Earth was more than 10,000 years old in 1907.

Oh wait, I remember now. The 6,000 year old earth was already debunked 100 years BEFORE rock dating, way before Darwin even published Origin of the Species.

In any case, radiometric dating is very reliable, and when it fails we usually know why.

Your claims to the contrary, you know nothing about science, and YEC creationism is about as far from science as its possible to get.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#113031 May 20, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And you have no evidence what so ever to counter the existence of a Maker. The universe is not made by man, then who then made it?
Nothing can make it/ his/ her self. Can you?
I will repeat –“And of course E=MC^2 is counter to the god described in KJV Revelation 19:6, and all it takes is one evidence compared to your zero.”

That my dear is evidence – so ever

Why should anyone have to make it? Oh I know why, because some goat herder in the bronze age said so – right?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 6 min Crazy Beautiful 8,809
Word Association. (Nov '10) 12 min Bezeer 19,678
Word Association (Mar '10) 14 min Bezeer 21,091
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 15 min wichita-rick 19,711
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 27 min Calisportsgirl 5,130
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 28 min wichita-rick 197,314
Some day, I would love to_______________? (Sep '12) 43 min ugly face 680
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Sup Sam 59,691
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 3 hr Knock off purse s... 33,153
More from around the web