Dinosaurs are not real :(

Carbon dating only works for some tens of thousands of years. Uranium lead dating is what you mean. Sorry for being pedantic :)

As for the main topic, I've long since given up trying to debate things logically with religious zealots. As in your post, they just say "it's a test of my faith" whenever you provide them with irrefutable evidence of why their beliefs are a load of crap. It's pointless trying to debate with people like that, as they have their belief and that belief includes a clause preventing any form of evidence or reasoning to demonstrate its incorrectness. The "it's a test" clause.

Religion, and creationism in particular, is IMO stupid (although I respect others don't share that opinion) because it relies solely on faith. Faith REQUIRES a lack of any evidence to function. If they had evidence of God, they wouldn't need faith would they? So religion by it's nature ignores evidence and therein lies the problem. There is NO reasoning with someone who ignores evidence.

And don't even get me started on the people that try to back up creationism and/or religion with what they laughably call "proof". Those people are even worse. They are genuinely retarded. They think mainstream science is the 'enemy' of religion and that scientists do everything they can to try and discount it. Which is of course complete ********. Scientists believe what the evidence tells them. If there was evidence of God, or creationsim, then scientists would believe it. So to attempt to "prove" science "wrong" is the most idiotically futile endeavour I've ever witnessed.

Rant over.

You are an excellent man.
 
Religion, and creationism in particular, is IMO stupid (although I respect others don't share that opinion) because it relies solely on faith.

All religion relies on faith, not just Creationism.

Belief that God, or any kind of omnipotent 'intelligent designer' created the Universe is all thats needed to define a creationist.
 
All religion relies on faith, not just Creationism.

Belief that God, or any kind of omnipotent 'intelligent designer' created the Universe is all thats needed to define a creationist.

I know. That's why I said "Religion...". The reason I singled out creationism is because it's more relevant to the actual points I was making. There is evidence DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING creationism. The same cannot be said for religion in general. There are certain beliefs which are demonstrably incorrect, but religion in general is immume from disproof, due to the "it's a test" thing I mentioned, as well as the fact that we can never be 100% sure of anything at all except that as an individual, we exist. (Decartes' "I think therefore I am"). All other knowledge is gleaned through your senses which are deceivable.

EDIT: I should clarify. In this post when I say "creationism" I am talking about young earth creationism. Apologies for the ambiguity.
 
Last edited:
Carbon dating only works for some tens of thousands of years. Uranium lead dating is what you mean. Sorry for being pedantic :)

As for the main topic, I've long since given up trying to debate things logically with religious zealots. As in your post, they just say "it's a test of my faith" whenever you provide them with irrefutable evidence of why their beliefs are a load of crap. It's pointless trying to debate with people like that, as they have their belief and that belief includes a clause preventing any form of evidence or reasoning to demonstrate its incorrectness. The "it's a test" clause.

Religion, and creationism in particular, is IMO stupid (although I respect others don't share that opinion) because it relies solely on faith. Faith REQUIRES a lack of any evidence to function. If they had evidence of God, they wouldn't need faith would they? So religion by it's nature ignores evidence and therein lies the problem. There is NO reasoning with someone who ignores evidence.

And don't even get me started on the people that try to back up creationism and/or religion with what they laughably call "proof". Those people are even worse. They are genuinely retarded. They think mainstream science is the 'enemy' of religion and that scientists do everything they can to try and discount it. Which is of course complete ********. Scientists believe what the evidence tells them. If there was evidence of God, or creationsim, then scientists would believe it. So to attempt to "prove" science "wrong" is the most idiotically futile endeavour I've ever witnessed.

Rant over.

+1

By far the most sensible post in this thread,

you did however forget the 'don't take the Bible literally' clause, so often used now when science & common sense prevails over ludicrous stories in the bible
 
All religion relies on faith, not just Creationism.

Belief that God, or any kind of omnipotent 'intelligent designer' created the Universe is all thats needed to define a creationist.

Not really, unless you're accepting the broadest possible definition of creationism, to simply mean that God created stuff, which is only a stone's throw from simply the idea that God exists at all, but hey... why would I be surprised that this is what your argument boils down to.
 
Not really, unless you're accepting the broadest possible definition of creationism, to simply mean that God created stuff, which is only a stone's throw from simply the idea that God exists at all, but hey... why would I be surprised that this is what your argument boils down to.

You make a good point distinguishing between "young earth" creationism, and other forms which accept scientific evidence relating to the age of the universe (to some degree). The latter have at least got a legitimate position, that is, their belief is not demonstrably false (although I do think Occam's razor is applicable in this debate, meaning that in the lack of evidence either way we should believe the simpler theory - the universe formed 'by itself'). The young earth brand of creationists however, are simply lost causes IMO. They may as well say that the population of the earth is only 10 people, and ignore the fact that there are quite blatantly more than 10 people here. That is the degree of idiocy that they exhibit.

+1

By far the most sensible post in this thread,

you did however forget the 'don't take the Bible literally' clause, so often used now when science & common sense prevails over ludicrous stories in the bible

Thanks :). Also true. But to be fair, science only really proves the bible wrong, not religion in general, or the millions (majority?) of religious people who don't take the bible any more literally than you or I do. So "don't take the Bible literally" isn't so much of a cop-out. Nowhere near the same level of cop-out-ness (that's definitely a real word :p) as "It's a test of my faith".
 
it relies solely on faith. Faith REQUIRES a lack of any evidence to function.
Empirical evidence....

Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas.



These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years.

Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.




Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind.





A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.





Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution. Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings,originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution.




For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin.Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent.





Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated.




It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years.




Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw. Ramapithecus was just an ape.




The only remains of Nebraska “man” turned out to be a pig’s tooth.




Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes found in the same area.





Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man.i Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.





The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo).





For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets.t Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today.Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence.




There is more evidence out there to show evolution never happened.



Doctor Walt Brown.
 
Or are you going to tell me that all those mutated people (not calling dwarves mutants btw) but are you saying that is a test of faith too?

If it is then God must be a very cruel kid with a magnifying glass...

Very, very good point. Brings to mind a really good quote from Epicurus:

"If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, then he is not omnipotent. If he is able, but not willing then he is malevolent. If he is both able and willing then whence cometh evil? If he is neither able nor willing then why call him God?"

For me, there are two big questions in the field of theology. Does God exist? and What is the nature of God? I'm not going to comment on the former because no-one has any evidence either way so it's all just speculation. But the latter question is very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Kedge, when you copy and paste could you tidy it up, as the huge gaps between sentences are ridiculous, and although I realise that is indicative of the content itself, I would appreciate if it was a little closer as it would be easier to read. :)
 
These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years.

Umm... fossils can be deposited rapidly AND millions of years ago. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind.

This is ******** on several levels. Firstly the recapitulation theory is dismissed by the vast majority of biologists these days as a load of crap. Secondly (even if it was true, which it's not), it's irrelevant because evolution occurs within a species, not an individual. The development of an individual tells us absolutely nothing about the development of the species to which it belongs. Utter tripe.

For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin.Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Though there is no evidence for God, I do not tell people it's a fact he doesn't exist. Please have the same courtesy.


Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated.

Lol. This is clutching at straws.

It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years.

You are criticising textbooks, not providing evidence contradicting evolution.

Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human.

Utter ********.

There is more evidence out there to show evolution never happened.

Doctor Walt Brown.

Lol. Doctor Walt Brown must be a retard. I wonder if he is actually a doctor. He didn't provide a single shred of evidence disproving evolution. Maybe he doesn't know what the word "evidence" means?

Sorry to be rude but your post was a ****-take.
 
Kedge, when you copy and paste could you tidy it up, as the huge gaps between sentences are ridiculous, and although I realise that is indicative of the content itself, I would appreciate if it was a little closer as it would be easier to read. :)

This actually cracked me up :D
 
Lol. Doctor Walt Brown I wonder if he is actually a doctor. He didn't provide a single shred of evidence disproving evolution. Maybe he doesn't know what the word "evidence" means?.
i don't see YOU or any of the "evolutionary scientists" taking up his offer of the written public debate, speaks volumes to me chap. You lot talk the talk but you take very little action in any proper dialogue, what are you afraid of?, it will be the truth that's why you lot are all mouth.
 
Kedge, when you copy and paste could you tidy it up, as the huge gaps between sentences are ridiculous, and although I realise that is indicative of the content itself, I would appreciate if it was a little closer as it would be easier to read. :)
If i did that there would be complaints of "wall of text" blah blah blah :D
 
i don't see YOU or any of the "evolutionary scientists" taking up his offer of the written public debate, speaks volumes to me chap. You lot talk the talk but you take very little action in any proper dialogue, what are you afraid of?, it will be the truth that's why you lot are all mouth.

Look mate, I've no problem with someone who is religious, I don't even mind someone who is a creationist, but it really irritates me when people like him talk such a load of crap and (no offence) people like you lap it up. You need to actually use your brain, go and research some of the stuff he claims, and realise that it's utter BS. And by "research" I mean read scientific papers, or blogs, or forums. Don't go on creationist websites. They are more than slightly biased.

I would engage in a public debate with him but frankly I can't be arsed. I'm not going to convince him because he's already made up his mind. Waste of time.
 
Empirical evidence....

Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas.

Can you give us your interpretation of how long ago the oil that we burn in our cars/power stations etc was formed ? The plankton that lived in the Jurassic period made our crude oil.

Many deposits are found as deep as 20,000 feet. crude oil is composed of microscopic animal & plant remains, how did it get there ?

How many years of sediment build up would it take to reach 20,000 feet do you think ??
There's no way you can evade this question is there ? or will you claim that oil is only found 30ft down :p
 
but time is only the way humans see things,Time began with the big bang you say,that is only in human terms,this box,matrix or whatever we want to call it,existed long before we came along and stamped our mark on it.

But I'm not claiming that humans have existed since the beginning of time. Not even close to it. Not even one ten-millionth of it. So your "counter" is a non-sequitor.

Nor did I say that time began with the big bang. I said that if time is a function of the universe, then time began at the same time as the universe and then there could not be any such thing as before the beginning of the universe because the concept of time existing before time existed is nonsense.
 
i don't see YOU or any of the "evolutionary scientists" taking up his offer of the written public debate, speaks volumes to me chap. You lot talk the talk but you take very little action in any proper dialogue, what are you afraid of?, it will be the truth that's why you lot are all mouth.

You are a conspiracy "theorist". It's always the same. Ignore all the evidence, ignore all the debate, never answer any questions...and continue to claim that all the evidence supports the conspiracy you have faith in, that nobody has any evidence to oppose it, nobody will debate it and nobody can question it. It doesn't matter whether it's a moon landing hoax conspiracy, a 9/11 inside job conspiracy or an evolution conspiracy. Same methods every time, because you all have nothing but lies.
 
I find this interesting.

Despite the belief that fossils represent millions of years, the rigorous tests performed by these PloS ONE authors verified that this cuttlebone contained original endogenous chitin. And that means that it, and very possibly all the fossils found near it, are not as old as evolutionary history says they are.

Fossil Cuttlefish Has Original Tissue


And this.

The Malapa Project's proposed changes to the process of standard scientific peer-review, though possibly yielding other benefits, likely will not be able to circumvent the plain observation that if this "two million-year-old" fossil has mummified skin, then it is not two million years old.

Skin Sample Is Two Million Years Old?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom