AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Intelligent design Vs Evolution

388 56275
redace333
offline
redace333
130 posts
Nomad

I just now found out about this forum and didn't notice a I.D. Vs E. thread so I decided to make one.

I am a Christian and believe in intelligent design is the way the world came to be.

What does everyone else think about this subject?

  • 388 Replies
Cinna
offline
Cinna
753 posts
Nomad

Give me one reason as to why this statement is true. Preferably one from scripture.

Same reason any religious person would give, his faith says so.



There are actually many reasons religious people give. To answer sammy's question: And Jesus said, " you are my rock upon which I will build my church.", in this case adressing Peter, first Pope of the church.
redace333
offline
redace333
130 posts
Nomad

I insulted nobody. Please don't make mountains out of molehills.

I consider "is you ignoring me to try to stay alive in this debate, which you lost a long time ago. You're just making things up now.`" a insult.

No, you reread our argument thus far. Either that, or we dismiss this as as misunderstanding.


Fine.

I have backed up my point multiple times, and you haven't done a thing to refute it.

That is because for the most part i agree with you.

This claim is completely unsupported. It does nothing to refute my point and therefore is invalid.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/mars_rock_not.html

There have been multiple "sightings" of amino acids and stuff that has turned out to be wrong. I would not be surprised to find multiple articles about how the thing you posted the link of about how it is wrong.

Both of your sources are painlessly and easily refuted by this.
Also, check the table of contents and make sure to not make any of the other silly arguments refuted by that site. kthxbai.


It is not refuted. There are wacky (no offense) scientists that say anything.

Also think of it logically: You light a huge ball of gases on fire. The fire gets pretty big and then gets smaller, smaller, smaller until it goes out. It doesn't stay the exact same size and randomly gets smaller and bigger.

Even as a worse case scenario (For my argument) maybe it isn't shrinking by much. But it is impossible to say the the sun is not shrinking at all. And you said the earth was billions of years old, way way more than the 20 million it would be needed to be inside the sun at the rate which has been sighted by my sources and many others.

Also on almost the same subject http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0811.asp
(no i did not read the whole thing and yes i read the the thing on your anti-young-earth place)

And heres another pro-young-earth thing for you to refute
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/?utm_source=aighomepage&utm_medium=bigbanner&utm_content=Six_Evidences_of_a_Young_Earth&utm_campaign=MonthlyCampaign
No. Think of our Earth as the mold. We are the item created by it. It is not a coincidence that we fit the mold - we were made from the mold and materials in it, therefore we should fit perfectly.


we fit perfectly right now. not billions of years ago.

Cite some evidence that isn't overshadowed by the evidence for it.


Your evidence isn't any better than mine. They disagree with each-other both cannot be right, but yours is no better than mine.


Evolution never dictates anything close to that. You are very mistaken.


Then what are "thoughts"?

Thank you for providing completely false information. I've said this before anyone who's religious really needs to stay away from those creationists sites, there really not good for you.


....

Like what?

That the earth can't be billions of years old. ^

in this case adressing Peter, first Pope of the church.

Whoa Peter was a pope? did he have the cool hat?
redace333
offline
redace333
130 posts
Nomad

I insulted nobody. Please don't make mountains out of molehills.

I consider "is you ignoring me to try to stay alive in this debate, which you lost a long time ago. You're just making things up now.`" a insult.

No, you reread our argument thus far. Either that, or we dismiss this as as misunderstanding.


Fine.

I have backed up my point multiple times, and you haven't done a thing to refute it.

That is because for the most part i agree with you.

This claim is completely unsupported. It does nothing to refute my point and therefore is invalid.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/mars_rock_not.html

There have been multiple "sightings" of amino acids and stuff that has turned out to be wrong. I would not be surprised to find multiple articles about how the thing you posted the link of about how it is wrong.

Both of your sources are painlessly and easily refuted by this.
Also, check the table of contents and make sure to not make any of the other silly arguments refuted by that site. kthxbai.


It is not refuted. There are wacky (no offense) scientists that say anything.

Also think of it logically: You light a huge ball of gases on fire. The fire gets pretty big and then gets smaller, smaller, smaller until it goes out. It doesn't stay the exact same size and randomly gets smaller and bigger.

Even as a worse case scenario (For my argument) maybe it isn't shrinking by much. But it is impossible to say the the sun is not shrinking at all. And you said the earth was billions of years old, way way more than the 20 million it would be needed to be inside the sun at the rate which has been sighted by my sources and many others.

Also on almost the same subject http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0811.asp
(no i did not read the whole thing and yes i read the the thing on your anti-young-earth place)

And heres another pro-young-earth thing for you to refute
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/?utm_source=aighomepage&utm_medium=bigbanner&utm_content=Six_Evidences_of_a_Young_Earth&utm_campaign=MonthlyCampaign
No. Think of our Earth as the mold. We are the item created by it. It is not a coincidence that we fit the mold - we were made from the mold and materials in it, therefore we should fit perfectly.


we fit perfectly right now. not billions of years ago.

Cite some evidence that isn't overshadowed by the evidence for it.


Your evidence isn't any better than mine. They disagree with each-other both cannot be right, but yours is no better than mine.


Evolution never dictates anything close to that. You are very mistaken.


Then what are "thoughts"?

Thank you for providing completely false information. I've said this before anyone who's religious really needs to stay away from those creationists sites, there really not good for you.


....

Like what?

That the earth can't be billions of years old. ^

in this case adressing Peter, first Pope of the church.

Whoa Peter was a pope? did he have the cool hat?
redace333
offline
redace333
130 posts
Nomad

Oops, it double posted.

And here is where i stand with the logical thing
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/12/07/feedback-god-and-logic

Cinna
offline
Cinna
753 posts
Nomad

You know what? I don't know... I don't think he did...

redace333
offline
redace333
130 posts
Nomad

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100425053243AAKB8NH

Well, Mr. Answerer 1 says he didn't. But I'm not sure if Mr. Answerer 1 is a trust worthy source.

Cinna
offline
Cinna
753 posts
Nomad

Well fearing Sammy's wrath, I will whisper that I don't think "Mr. Answer" is going to be able to provide the best insite.

Cinna
offline
Cinna
753 posts
Nomad

So agreed good sirrah.

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

I consider "is you ignoring me to try to stay alive in this debate, which you lost a long time ago. You're just making things up now.`" a insult.


You were ignoring, or at least missing, some things I had said earlier that had bearing on a lot of the points you were making. But whatever, it doesn't really matter.

Then what are "thoughts"?


Something unrelated to this debate, lol. You have to understand that evolution is only the theory/fact of how life changes over time, and nothing more or less. Thoughts are not related to the theory of evolution.

Thoughts are observations we make based on the sensory data we're given.

It is not refuted. There are wacky (no offense) scientists that say anything.


Like the creationist ones you cited. The sun shrinking argument is simply false. Like my first source says, the data has since been invalidated. And hence,the entire shrinking sun argument is too.

I have sources.

And moar sources.


And even moar sources.

Even MOAR sources!

Oh yeah, there's this source too.

Another source!

One last source.

There have been multiple "sightings" of amino acids and stuff that has turned out to be wrong. I would not be surprised to find multiple articles about how the thing you posted the link of about how it is wrong.


But this still doesn't matter until you turn up sources refuting my source. Until then, nothing you can say can refute my point. I'm the one with the evidence right now, and you just saying that there have been fake amino acid sightings does nothing to refute me. Yeah, the Mars rock thing wasn't true, but there's nothing indicating the incident I cited isn't.

Also think of it logically: You light a huge ball of gases on fire. The fire gets pretty big and then gets smaller, smaller, smaller until it goes out. It doesn't stay the exact same size and randomly gets smaller and bigger.


Exactly. The Sun hasn't always been shrinking. That is the fatal flaw of the shrinking sun argument. It assumes the shrink rate as being constant, when due to the volatility of stars, it probably isn't. The shrinking sun argument is invalid.

Even as a worse case scenario (For my argument) maybe it isn't shrinking by much. But it is impossible to say the the sun is not shrinking at all. And you said the earth was billions of years old, way way more than the 20 million it would be needed to be inside the sun at the rate which has been sighted by my sources and many others.


Or maybe it wasn't always shrinking! The shrinking sun argument is totally invalid because it commits a fallacy - it assumes the sun was always shrinking, when there's nothing to suggest it was.

A'IGHT. You still think the sun is shrinking? :P

Really though, I hope I've refuted the argument soundly enough for you to drop it, because every single source I linked to destroys the argument. kthx.

Your evidence isn't any better than mine. They disagree with each-other both cannot be right, but yours is no better than mine.


My evidence is better for two reasons. 1 - it has significant scientific backing. The entire shrinking sun argument is based from one now-discredited report from the 80s. 2 - I have more evidence on my side. I've linked to like 8 sources so far, and all of them refute the 2 or 3 you've posted.

we fit perfectly right now. not billions of years ago.


It takes time for a piece to be tempered so it fits the mold perfectly. We fit perfectly now because we had time to sit in the mold and grow to fit it.

That the earth can't be billions of years old. ^


Oh, I've shown it can.

But just to clarify . . . .

Sources!

MOAR sources!

One last source for now.

A'ight, now I'm better backed up because of not only the more currentness of my evidence, but my quantity. :P
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

That the earth can't be billions of years old. ^


It's either billions of years old, or a few thousand. Which one is more credible?
Cinna
offline
Cinna
753 posts
Nomad

It's either billions of years old, or a few thousand. Which one is more credible?


Neither actually. The Earh has existed for 10 minutes. An alien race came, created the planet, created us, and implanted artificial memory in us. Everything we remember is just a chip in our minds. Well, at least that's what the voices are telling me.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

That the earth can't be billions of years old. ^


There are a number of things that suggest other wise like how the un...

Sources!


You got it covered.

There is also how the fo...

MOAR sources!


Got that covered as well.

There is the different radi...

One last source for now.


You didn't leave me anything did you? :P

I guess I could point out other geological formations that would have taken much longer then a few thousand years to form but one of those links has an example already, so... hmm.
redace333
offline
redace333
130 posts
Nomad

. It assumes the shrink rate as being constant


That is not true.

Or maybe it wasn't always shrinking! The shrinking sun argument is totally invalid because it commits a fallacy - it assumes the sun was always shrinking, when there's nothing to suggest it was.


^

A'IGHT. You still think the sun is shrinking? :P


Yup :P

Really though, I hope I've refuted the argument soundly enough for you to drop it, because every single source I linked to destroys the argument. kthx.


I can list just as many sources as that. (Probably more)
Also, (This works both ways) just because a lot of people say something is true, doesn't mean it is.

My evidence is better for two reasons. 1 - it has significant scientific backing. The entire shrinking sun argument is based from one now-discredited report from the 80s. 2 - I have more evidence on my side. I've linked to like 8 sources so far, and all of them refute the 2 or 3 you've posted.


1, My evi does that too!
2. Fine I'll get more.
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/skeptics.asp
-http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap06.htm
-http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=165
-http://thesop.org/story/science/2009/02/20/does-size-really-matter-is-the-sun-shrinking.php

I can get more but i don't have an unlimited amount of time on my hands.

It takes time for a piece to be tempered so it fits the mold perfectly. We fit perfectly now because we had time to sit in the mold and grow to fit it.


Doesn't seem like 12,000 years would be enough.

A'ight, now I'm better backed up because of not only the more currentness of my evidence, but my quantity. :P

1. Almost all of your sources rely on false dating methods.
2. Quantity doesn't say anything. (You said yourself that the majority doesn't control what is true)

It's either billions of years old, or a few thousand. Which one is more credible?

That is THE question.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

There are also key landmarks and objects, created by man, that were older than the religious dateline that is so popular these days. I think 20,000 years old is pretty far back, farther than 6000 or 12,000. Even so, these mountains that are so awe-inspiring to look at took longer than a million to form.

redace333
offline
redace333
130 posts
Nomad

I guess I could point out other geological formations that would have taken much longer then a few thousand years to form but one of those links has an example already, so... hmm.


And also, that argument would be invalid because God could have created the formations in that state. Like how Adam and Eve were adults not children, There was already fruit on the trees and so on.


The evi still doesn't prove the earth is old.'

Neither actually. The Earh has existed for 10 minutes. An alien race came, created the planet, created us, and implanted artificial memory in us. Everything we remember is just a chip in our minds. Well, at least that's what the voices are telling me.


Umm...


there are also key landmarks and objects, created by man, that were older than the religious dateline


Where?

I think 20,000 years old is pretty far back, farther than 6000 or 12,000.


I say the earth is 12,000 years old because it's about where the dates line up in the bible. But the bible doesn't say the world was created on 12,000 BC 12:31 PM Friday March 10th.

It could be as young as 6k or possibly old as 20k.
Showing 166-180 of 388