The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Intelligent design Vs Evolution
| 388 | 55574 |
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
What does the sun have to do with the theory of either evolution of intelligent design?
That is a hasty generalization logical fallacy.
Unless you checked every single one of those sites and checked every single thing that it said.
I've been over these site and many more like then to know what I'm talking about.
That doesn't work. Evolutionism is a religion just as much as creationism.
If you had any credibility you just lost it. Evolution isn't an -ism it's a scientific theory based on objective testable evidence. Creationism is based on nothing but belief. Learn the %*&^ difference.
LA LA LA- wait what? We both have evi don't forget that.
I would hardly call what you have presented reliable evidence.
Also, being a scientist doesn't really mean much anyway. Joe The Blogger could be smarter than Dr Wacky. (Nto saying this is always true, but still...)
Being scientific means you check and recheck and have others do the same to be sure what your presenting is accurate. So a theory isn't just based on one scientist and it's not based on personal belief unlike the crap your putting up.
Also, on uranium-lead dating, I never said it was infallible, and your source even says we can only guess at the possible faults, like the thing about daughter products or changing decay rate. In either case, it's still a good method of dating things, even approximately, and it's a lot better than the YE theories like the shrinking sun which aren't even scientifically valid.
There is no such thing as evolutionism! It works perfectly. Evolution is nothing more than how life changes over time! It has no bearing on this debate! Get that false information out of your head.
1. There is such a thing as Evolutionism
2. Evolutionism is a religion just as much as creationism.
http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism-is-a-religion.html
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/EvolutionReligion.htm
http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evofaith.html
you are no longer qualified to continue debating this.
No one can be unqualified to debate.
The YE theory tied to this says that the maximum age of the Earth is around 20 million years because the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet/hour. For that to work, the sun would've had to have been shrinking at a constant rate. This is not true, as my sources evidence. You're even misunderstanding your own theory now!
1 your evi they says the the Sun is getting smaller in spurts of smallerizing.
2 Someone is obviously wrong with this. both sources can't be right. there are only 3 possibilities with this.
-1 My evi is right.
-2 your evi is right.
-3 Both evi are wrong.
So, if the sun was shrinking at that much it would be inside the sun at 20m years. If it was shrinking slower at a non-constant rate maybe it could last more. but you say the earth is 4 billion years old! which means if it was way way slower it still wouldn't work.
The sun is shrinking AND inflating. It's pulsating - not continuously shrinking. I've proved this over and over again, and you're completely ignoring it.
If the sun was inflating then it still means millions/billions of years ago it would be EXTREMELY hot.
I'll finish in a second, need to eat dinner
What does the sun have to do with the theory of either evolution of intelligent design?
redace333 is arguing the Earth is far to young for evolution to have taken place because if the Earth was that old it would have been far to close to the sun due to the sun be far larger.
2. Evolutionism is a religion just as much as creationism.
Evolutionism is a term used by creationists to generalize the beliefs of the stereotypical atheist into one term. It's not relevant in this debate at all.
Also, those three sources you posted for that illustrate my point - it's a term used only by creationists to generalize the beliefs of the stereotypical atheist into one standpoint.
No one can be unqualified to debate.
Uninformed people, or people who disregard evidence that someone else posts(you, unless you've read all of the sources I've posted on this matter)are unqualified.
1 your evi they says the the Sun is getting smaller in spurts of smallerizing.
No, it says that the sun's size is varying, but that it is not constantly shrinking like the YE theory states. You even admitted that you haven't read all of my evidence, so why are you qualified to lie about the contents of it?
If the sun was inflating then it still means millions/billions of years ago it would be EXTREMELY hot.
No, it doesn't. Like I said, the sun's size is fluctating. It is not constantly expanding OR shrinking, like my evidence says. Once again, you misunderstand my point.
So, if the sun was shrinking at that much it would be inside the sun at 20m years. If it was shrinking slower at a non-constant rate maybe it could last more. but you say the earth is 4 billion years old! which means if it was way way slower it still wouldn't work.
But the sources I provide clearly state that the sun was not always shrinking! So 4.6 billion years is perfectly viable.
And right now, Alt is arguing that the sun is pulsating its size, just like how it gains and loses sun spots each year-- it wouldn't just keep losing or gaining, that would be dangerous for us!
I'm not too great at this sun business, but at least I don't google sites that I don't look at and pretend it's genuine evidence to back up my argument.
If the sun was inflating then it still means millions/billions of years ago it would be EXTREMELY hot.
Alt is saying the sun is both shrinking and increasing in size in varied amounts, not saying it only inflates.
No one can be unqualified to debate.
Haha I disagree. You have shown me that there is such a group of people...
If you really wanna get technical, sure everyone is "qualified to debate" I guess... but you won't be taken seriously...
Evolutionism is a term used by creationists to generalize the beliefs of the stereotypical atheist into one term. It's not relevant in this debate at all.
The only reason i said that is because you said there is no such thing as Evolutionism.
However both believing Evolution (Or abiogenisis or w/e it is) or believing creation takes faith.
Uninformed people, or people who disregard evidence that someone else posts(you, unless you've read all of the sources I've posted on this matter)are unqualified.
See Mavericks Post.
No, it says that the sun's size is varying, but that it is not constantly shrinking like the YE theory states. You even admitted that you haven't read all of my evidence, so why are you qualified to lie about the contents of it?
Please do not use ad-hominem arguments.
No, it doesn't. Like I said, the sun's size is fluctating. It is not constantly expanding OR shrinking, like my evidence says. Once again, you misunderstand my point.
Your evi says that is it both Growing and shrinking in spurts, Yes i agree that it says that. But combustion is still happening. So, it would either be really cold billions of years ago, or really hot because of the deference of gases.
But the sources I provide clearly state that the sun was not always shrinking! So 4.6 billion years is perfectly viable.
Your sources say that. But again think of it logically.
1. There is such a thing as Evolutionism
2. Evolutionism is a religion just as much as creationism.
http://www.creationists.org/evolutionis ⦠igion.html
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/EvolutionReligion.htm
http://www.delusionresistance.org/creat ⦠faith.html
Quoting from the only source that can be almost reliable in all of that.
"In the modern scientific community, the term is considered an anachronism and redundant since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, and so it is not used."
"Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion."
So basically it's an out dated, erroneous term, that's used as nothing more then a cheap run around to try and make creationism seem more valid without having to provide anything to back it up.
So basically it's an out dated, erroneous term, that's used as nothing more then a cheap run around to try and make creationism seem more valid without having to provide anything to back it up.
Did you read the whole thing?
However both believing Evolution (Or abiogenisis or w/e it is) or believing creation takes faith.
It doesn't take faith to follow where the objective evidence leads.
Observed changes in a species is not faith.
How the geological distribution phylogenetic tree of life and molecular tree of life all match up is not faith.
How the fossil record shows a gradual change in species is not faith....
Did you read the whole thing?
Yes, your not the first to provide that wiki page and it still doesn't make it a valid term to use.
Observed changes in a species is not faith.
How the geological distribution phylogenetic tree of life and molecular tree of life all match up is not faith.
How the fossil record shows a gradual change in species is not faith....
None of that has ever been seen.
Yes, your not the first to provide that wiki page and it still doesn't make it a valid term to use.
The wiki page was a joke. The article i was talking about was the Evolution is a religion thing.
You must be logged in to post a reply!