Conquer Club

AAFitz wrote:
Heres one fact that proves your theory wrong. Plants need warmth and sunlight to survive. Its a fact. Its easy to prove. There simply could not have been plants without a sun, minus some force field idea akin to a starwars novelette.

You forget....they ignore anything that makes their theory invalid lol.

AAFitz wrote:

Lionz wrote:It doesn't even take hundreds of years for something to fossilize perhaps. Have you flipped forward and seen slides here? http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... /frame.htm

This is the title of one of the articles that supposedly disproves evolution of earth and animal... on one page.

Supporting Creation

If one fact can disprove a theory, then the theory is wrong.

.

Not to mention this is just plain wrong.

First, most theories are written as single theories for convenience, but, in the context of "one fact disproving the whole" are really a series of theories.

On the one hand, evolution is the broad idea that species can (but don't have to) give rise to other species. To disprove this, you have to prove not just that a single change failed to happen (which Creationists claim), but you have to prove that NO species changed into another species. The newer "scientific creationists" (aka the institute for creation research and their supporters/followers) admit to "micro changes" or "changes within kinds". Even so, the argument still holds, but even more. That is, they show many cases where things did change in a way they say is "within kinds"... and claim that is proof that everything came here at once. To truly disprove the scientific view that the progression was much more than simply a bunch of species that evolved within the same kind, you have to show that ALL links established between disparent groups are wrong, do not exist. They do keep expanding the definition of "kind", but still have never proven most of what paleontologists/evolutionists put forward. They simply claim it doesn't exist, and ignore it.

On the other hand, evolution is not one theory, but a complex of many, many, many smaller theories and tiny hypothesis. In this way, "the" theory of evolution includes each idea put forward by each individual paleontologist that fossil x represents y. The paleontologist might goof on the species identification. A paleontologist might misunderstand a certain part (think a swimming apendage is a land-walking appendage, for example) or have an idea that a certain feature is representative of another feature on another fossil. ANY of those individual parts might well prove wrong, but still not mean that every other small hypothesis/theory in the "evolutionary theory group" is wrong. This is the part that many young earthers and "inbetweeners" (who might not think the earth is 6,000 years old, but who doubt that evolution is true) get things wrong. Evolution does NOT depend on everything anybody puts forward being true. IN fact, it is gauranteed that given all the fossils that are discovered and the sheer complexity of identifications, etc, that many, many errors have been, are being and will be made. The recent realization that many dinosaurs are more like birds than reptiles, the discovery of color in dinosaurs, etc.. all are examples of ways early paleontologists/evolutionists got things wrong, but not so wrong as to in any way indicate the concept of evolution is wrong.

This is part of why young earth creationists, and many "inbetweeners" , wind up frustrating scientists, why so many of us answer, in response to criticisms "you just don't understand evolution!". Often there is this idea that Evolution is a "bottom up" theory. That is, that you begin with the idea either that the Bible is wrong OR that all life originated from a single source. To disprove Evolution, the idea goes, all you have to do is prove the Bible is correct OR prove that life did not begin from a single source. This is just wrong. Evolutionists often postulate that all life might have come from a single source, yes. However, the theory does not depend on that. It is just the opposite. Evidence has been found of change over time, so the idea was brought forth that this might we continue to a single source. However, multiple sources might be found and that would still not impact whether we are related to Apes, whether land animals arose from water-dwelling species, etc.


Finally, even just finding problems with evolution, even outright disproving all of evolutionary theory (something no one has yet done!), would STILL not automatically mean that young earth (or "betweener") ideas are correct or even could be correct. You cannot just attack the prevailing theory and say "OK, so any other idea must be acceptable". You have to actually find evidence to support the new theory.

Young earthers have defnitely NOT done this. They present mostly inaccurate attacks on evolution, but what "scientific proof" they do present is not that. They take regularly published science and carefully select out quotes to make it seem as if there is something incorrect about the science conclusion or that it supports young earth ideas. Essentially, it seems they "bank" on the truth that most people won't bother to go back to source material to check references (that alone, by-the-way, is reason for even those who believe young earth ideas to come out against groups like the Institute for Creation Research. If your ideas are true, then you do not need deceit!) AND they bank on heavy misunderstandings of science and evolution (misunderstandings they carefully build up in children taught using their curricula).

Bane,

What suggests that Genesis is not supposed to refer to actual historical events?

Maybe whether or not earth coming together from dust particles over billions of years would be a more simple explanation that Him creating earth out of nothing comes down to perspective or definition or both.

I'm not sure when the flood was maybe, but it might have been between 4,300 and 4,350 years ago.

Do you mean to suggest it does require hundreds of years for something to fossilize?

AAFitz,

There was light before the sun and He Himself is even light maybe. Comments on these?

Genesis 1:1-5
John 1:1-10
1 John 1:5

Player,

I'm not sure there's anyone who's arguing there aren't different species that share common ancestry maybe. Now did whales evolve from wolf-like land dwelling creatures and do humans and chimps share common ancestry as a result of sexual unions in the past? Myself and many others are not convinced of either perhaps, but maybe people can agree to disagree on things.

Lionz wrote:
Player,

I'm not sure there's anyone who's arguing there aren't different species that share common ancestry maybe. Now did whales evolve from wolf-like land dwelling creatures and do humans and chimps share common ancestry as a result of sexual unions in the past? Myself and many others are not convinced of either perhaps, but maybe people can agree to disagree on things.

Which is it you assert? Species have commong ancestry or they don't?

Lionz: I ask again. State something you actually believe, indicate your degree of certainty. Post an opinion which you hold yourself.That woould be a good way to begin a debate.

jonesthecurl wrote:Lionz: I ask again. State something you actually believe, indicate your degree of certainty. Post an opinion which you hold yourself.That woould be a good way to begin a debate.

Ahhh, but we're 384 pages in, that horse has long since bolted.

King Doctor wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Lionz: I ask again. State something you actually believe, indicate your degree of certainty. Post an opinion which you hold yourself.That woould be a good way to begin a debate.

Ahhh, but we're 384 pages in, that horse has long since bolted.

lionz has not been around that long.

PLAYER57832 wrote:lionz has not been around that long.

I never said that he did.

I merely said that the debate was this long, I never implied that he entered at the beggining of it.

Player,

What do you mean? There are some species that share common ancestry and some that don't maybe.

Jones,

How about this? viewtopic.php?f=8&t=120899&p=2669893#p2669893

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maoGItxwTTA

Dr. William Lane Craig is probably the best arguer for the existence of God. This links to part of Dr. Craig's opening statement to Dr. Flew in a "Does God Exist?" debate in Wisconsin about 12 years ago. Feel free to watch the rest of the debate. I urge you to watch this, as Dr. Craig makes things pretty clear.

For the record, Dr. Flew is now a believer, if that tells you anything.

Yeah, this topic is old and blah blah blah, but since I found this, I figure someone else will too.

Let's get back to the original topic; logic doesn't dictate anything!

Well it used to dictate, but reason turned around and said, "who do you think I am, your (BEEEP) secretary? Write it down yourself!"

Without logic, though, all arguments crumble to nothingness. So, in a sense, logic dictates everything.

Logic is the tool to butress arguments. Without it, arguments may fall apart, but it is not complete. Consider the following ...

All Cows are Purple
Flossie is a Cow
Therefore Flossie is Purple

The logic is flawless.

Yes, IF the first statement were true, which it isn't. So your argument crumbles on the basis that all cows are not purple.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Yes, IF the first statement were true, which it isn't. So your argument crumbles on the basis that all cows are not purple.

what happened to jay? did the rapture happen and no one told me?

Victor Sullivan wrote:Yes, IF the first statement were true, which it isn't. So your argument crumbles on the basis that all cows are not purple.

the logical induction is fine, the premises aren't though

Victor Sullivan wrote:Yes, IF the first statement were true, which it isn't. So your argument crumbles on the basis that all cows are not purple.

The argument crumbles, but not the logic. The logic doesn't care if statements are true or not. In fact, logic works with true and false statements resulting in conclusions that are likewise true or false. People keep thinking that logic forces conclusions to be true, but that's not logic's job. Logic just transforms truth, it does not guarentee it.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Yeah, this topic is old and blah blah blah, but since I found this, I figure someone else will too.

The oldness of this topic isn't that important, it's that every argument brought up "proving" God is real has been recognized as bullshit.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:Yeah, this topic is old and blah blah blah, but since I found this, I figure someone else will too.

The oldness of this topic isn't that important, it's that every argument brought up "proving" God is real has been recognized as bullshit.

If you're going to say that God isn't disprovable, then it certainly isn't provable.

it felt so good to win this thread.

Ah, nostalgia.

heavycola wrote:it felt so good to win this thread.

Ah, nostalgia.

...when did this happen?

john9blue wrote:

heavycola wrote:it felt so good to win this thread.

Ah, nostalgia.

...when did this happen?

when they told themselves this over and over again

silvanricky wrote:

john9blue wrote:

heavycola wrote:it felt so good to win this thread.

Ah, nostalgia.

...when did this happen?

when they told themselves this over and over again

Oh, the self-delusion ritual. Anything can come true as long as you believe it with all your heart! Us sky daddy worshipers are gonna have to start a new thread, I guess.