…said the man who wrote the most laughable things in this thread
i study these things, i hoped my knowledge would be useful
but i won’t bother trying to explain if you keep ignoring the contents of the things i write and respond with such nonsense
this, btw… doesn’t exist… i thought that would be clear
I am absolutely stunned! A long thread about nothing.
I am not stunned by the fundamentalists approach of creators of creation, there is nothing new about it.
Ignorance and stupidity on the part of evolutionists is what surprises me.
When are you going to learn from your past mistakes.
You can not argue with a creationist because they are not looking at evolution as a possibility they are looking at it as a threat to their believes.
Fact:
65 million years ago there were no human beings on earth.
Question:
Where did we come from?
Fact:
Going back longer in time there are no fossils of animals.
Question:
Where did they come from?
My answer: this is the proof of a living god!
It’s like picking scabs, you know? Sometimes you just gotta scratch.
Besides, it prompts me to examine my arguments. That’s got to be a good thing.
That last bit of your post… you don’t really think that do you? That was you taking a swing at the creationists… right?
eOK, let me just point out one small thing here. Y’all keep talkin’ about the age of the earth but how are you getting those numbers? Because if you’re using the age of fossils and rock layer than we have a problem. Let’s see if I can explain this in simplistic terms: y’all get the age of fossils from the layer they’re found in; y’all get the layers ages from the fossils found in the layers. Does anyone see the problem with this? It’s called “circular reasoning”. Funny how these things work.
And as for science with God in mind, how about this: Y’all talk of how freakin’ old the earth is but y’all haven’t even seen the basic problems with that. Y’all understand that trees are always growing older, that deserts get steadily large, and that the Great Barrior Reef continues to grow, right? If we were to assume that these things had been growing since they first were created, then isn’t it just amazin’ how their calculated ages are consistant with the Flood? If evolution is true, then why is it that there isn’t a tree, desert , or reef older than about 4000 years? Now you can say that I don’t know anything about science, but it doesn’t necessarily take a scientist to understand that more problems such as these will blow your cover. You know, I seriously don’t care if you still want to be an evolutionist after everything you’ve been told. It’s you’re soul you’re damning for all eternity, not mine, but I do object to y’all tryin’ to shove it down our throats, we are not allowed to make creationism manditory so why should y’all be allowed evolution? Whatever happened to equal rights? I also don’t like the fact that y’all teach evolution as a fact which leads to some children believing in it and God because nobody ever pointed out what’s wrong with it and how contradictory the two are. You know what would please me? If when you teach evolution in a public school you remember to tell them that it’s still a theory, then go on to teach science that can be proven and doesn’t smack of any religion, be it evolution or Christianity or any other religion. Of course that would be too much to ask from y’all, huh?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Inkeybo1116,
Now THOSE are the kind of arguments the Biblical side needs around here!
I’d like to read comments you might have on the Bible-contradiction threads that were on here a few weeks back…If anyone else would care, that is. I don’t have the training for that kind of thing.
As for me, my sect of Christainity allows for Bible passages to be symbolic in nature, and for evolution to be considered within certain bounds. But we may be extra-wary of scientific opinion since the Galileo trial.
mrn
If you post things like circular reasoning again we have to move this post to the Rant section.
There are fossil findings (of whatever age) with obviously no Human present in the same layers.
I guess those people are sitting with god and their bone are there with them!
If by ‘those kind’ you mean falacy ridden and based on false premises filtered from half baked lies and misinformation…
Then I heartily agree! 
InkeyBo- A prefunctory look around the internet turned up this BBC article on the estimated age of the Great Barrier Reef, based on borehole samples taken in 2001. Turn out it’s even younger than they thought- in fact it’s only 600,000 years old! Bear in mind, these scientists are without agenda (unlike the estimable fellows over at Answers In Genesis).
-
Do you mean there are no proto-humans either? Is man that recent a finding?
-
You don’t have the authority to decide on post movings, as you are not a moderator of this topic.
Fight on, Inkeybo!
Do you genuinely find that kind of self-righetous rhetoric convincing?
You must have no idea how self-righetous the rhetoric of the athiests (not the evolutionists, mind you) sound from the “other side”.
I’m sure both sides are guilty of it in some measure, I’m not saying atheists are free of fault. But that’s not the question I asked.
Your question was whether I found that kind of “self-righetous rhetoric” convincing.
In my original response, I was trying to point out that I missed the feeling that it was self-righteous;
Your post brought me to think that the response was “tit-for-tat” with others’ posts;
And on reflection I think it is not the rhetoric that got me, but the clearly phrased arguments behind them which begged responses.
The real question isn’t if Evolution is “true†but if it is more “true†in relation to another hypothesis.
In which case you must compare it to another theory meant to explain reality.
As things stand Evolution is the best theory explaining natural diversity and life.
Anyone questioning it in comparison to a creationist hypothesis should first ask himself, if outer proof is lacking, what answer would satisfy him and why.
Why is the agnostic evolutionist satisfed if proof is lacking? (I have heard arguments besides Inkibo’s against the fossil record.)
Belief in Creationism or even a theistic evolution provides for more meaning and philosophical continuity, it seems… Unless you want a continuity of nihilism.
Not a persuasive argument unless you base your inclination to beleive something on how much you want to beleive it… a popular approach, if not especially rigorous. I’d also point out that a philosophy based upon what I consider to be the likely truth is the only contiguous philosophy possible.
That doesn’t exactly justify self-righetousness. Everyone knows… two wrongs blah blah blah.
I agree, clearly stated arguments from fact are sorely lacking among creationists. I was delighted to be able to check up on facts from Inkeybo’s arguments- the fruit of which you can see above in my post of Sat Oct 08.
Otherwise, it’s a bit samey… he’s still asking us to teach science that can be proven, as if such a beast existed. And calling evolution a religion. And using “y’all”, which is fine, but does have a certain deep south ring to it. 
So on top of not understanding my posts, you’re prejudiced against Southern accents too?
Philosophy is based on the assumption that truth can be known. See Socrates (third guy on the top of the page) in Plato’s Meno, where he says that we would be better and bolder and less idle if we thought that finding the truth were possible and pursued it than if we didn’t and that it didn’t matter. So, yes, it seems legitimate for us philosophers to believe a more valuable option for us if we don’t know any better and we get more philosophy (love of wisdom) from that option.
No, but it does justify ignoring the self-righteousness on both sides and reading and dealing with their arguments.
And, I concede, you did deal with the argument.
I don’t agree. Both sides are usually somewhat shallow in their understandings and their arguments, from what I’ve seen posted over the months here. I’ve read people who had to be told (and wouldn’t be) the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design theory (no matter what accent they affected.) 
Regards,
mrn
Evolutionism is a crock of shit. It relies on predictions that have yet to be verified or falsified. It also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which has been verified and falsified and which supports the Intelligent Design theory more than anything.
Even the organs used to invent and explain the theory of Evolution are irreducibly complex, hence the expressing the theory actually entails contradicting it.