Creationism vs evolutionism

[Undead Cheese]

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

Uhhh yes not only with the fact that scientific theory is wrong can he be proven but with the recent biblical research on events that have happened in the early times. Let me ask you... do you watch the history channel, or maybe the discovery channel, or even A&E. If you do you will see that archeologists and anthropologists have found noahs ark.

Just because they name a show "Finding Noah's Ark" doesn't mean they actually found it. Yes, I've seen these specials, and if you had taken the time to watch them instead of comming to the wrong conclusions by looking at the title you'd know that they didn't find the ark. Sorry to burst your bubble. Want to know what they did find, though? A piece of wood that was a few hundred years old. Not quite old enough to be a piece from Noah's Ark. Not only that, but because of the shifting ice on the top of the mountain, any structure that rested on the top of the mountain would have been torn apart and pulled to the bottom along with the changing sheets of ice.

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

Not only that but all the gaps in the world i.e. marianas trench give evidence of a great force that caused something to break through the surface of the earth and cause such enormous gash in the earths face. This was without a doubt great amounts of water.

This is hilarious. This is absolutely ****ing hilarious. Hahahahahahahahaha! Want to know what the Mariana Trench actually is? Contrary to your perception of it, formed by massive ignorance, the Mariana Trench isn't evidence of water tearing through the surface of the earth and gushing forth to create a massive flood. In reality, the Mariana Trench is merely where the Pacific plate is being subducted under the Philippine plate. Horray! The Mariana Trench proves the movement of tectonic plates! Unfortunately this doesn't help your argument in the least.

Now let's talk about more problems with the flood. First is obviously the size. Avid creationists will often say that Noah collected babies/eggs from each species instead of the full-sized thing to reduce the overall size requirements, but this just isn't enough, and creates several problems of its own. First, the some babies will obviously need to be nursed. Too bad, no parents. Second, they'll need to be taught skills to survive in the wild. Too bad, no parents. Etc. Not only that, but Noah would have needed to fit the ark with massive aquariams so he could collect the fish, as there are different kinds of fish (i.e. salt water and fresh water fish), and a global flood would destroy their ecosystem. All-in-all, the ark would have needed to exceed Washington D.C. in size. This is all assuming a global flood happened in the first place, which it didn't. Want to know what happens when you add enough water to the surface to globally flood it? It affects the atmosphere and the air you breathe! Why does that matter, you ask? Well, it would affect it so much that the air would no longer be breatheable, and you would probably drown if you tried to do so. You also have the minor problems of A) Where did the water come from? - and - B) Where did the water go?

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

there is no evidence that suggests otherwise.

Actually, there is. See above.

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

Another example is back when moses led his people to the promised land. He was to water many people but didn't have enough water for everyone. They lost faith in him and in God. So what moses did was took his staff and hit it against a rock spewing forth great amounts of water for his chosen people.

You have proof that this particular water-spewing rock actually happened, yes? Don't bother saying, "The Bible." Testimonies written down years after-the-fact aren't exactly credible.

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

The rock can be seen today.

A water-damaged rock (if it even is?) proves nothing.

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

I'll refer everyone to this link www.drdino.com or www.kenthovind.com
got alot more answers to questions I may not be able to answer but for the most part Ihave the big picture in sight.
Noob-Spree

So misguided.

[Noob-Spree]

Just because they name a show "Finding Noah's Ark" doesn't mean they actually found it. Yes, I've seen these specials, and if you had taken the time to watch them instead of comming to the wrong conclusions by looking at the title you'd know that they didn't find the ark. Sorry to burst your bubble. Want to know what they did find, though? A piece of wood that was a few hundred years old. Not quite old enough to be a piece from Noah's Ark. Not only that, but because of the shifting ice on the top of the mountain, any structure that rested on the top of the mountain would have been torn apart and pulled to the bottom along with the changing sheets of ice.

This is going under the assupmtion that radio carbon dating is accurate which it is not.

Now let's talk about more problems with the flood. First is obviously the size. Avid creationists will often say that Noah collected babies/eggs from each species instead of the full-sized thing to reduce the overall size requirements, but this just isn't enough, and creates several problems of its own. First, the some babies will obviously need to be nursed. Too bad, no parents. Second, they'll need to be taught skills to survive in the wild. Too bad, no parents. Etc. Not only that, but Noah would have needed to fit the ark with massive aquariams so he could collect the fish, as there are different kinds of fish (i.e. salt water and fresh water fish), and a global flood would destroy their ecosystem. All-in-all, the ark would have needed to exceed Washington D.C. in size. This is all assuming a global flood happened in the first place, which it didn't. Want to know what happens when you add enough water to the surface to globally flood it? It affects the atmosphere and the air you breathe! Why does that matter, you ask? Well, it would affect it so much that the air would no longer be breatheable, and you would probably drown if you tried to do so. You also have the minor problems of A) Where did the water come from? - and - B) Where did the water go?

The ark was not built for every different sects of a certain species. It was created for Dogs whether they were for example bull mastif or cocker spaniel and so on and so forth for the different species. Fish were excluded from this list due to the fact that in many circumstances fish will undergo physiological changes to suit there surroundings i.e. salt water to fresh and vice versa. Nor were insects included.

It says in Genesis not sure what passage, I forget but between the chapter 4 and 7 you will find a passage that says " And the waters came from above and below the firmament and hailed for forty days and forty nights" Now thinking in a logical manner, our planet undergoes such rapid changes in weather. It can be noticed from the early 1980s to the present that in some places in the United States are just not as warm as they used to be and some are hotter the ever before.

Now come on over to my creationist veiw on this and take a trip back to about 6000 years ago. About when the earth was still an infant. Isn't it possible that when "god created the heavens". I dont mean the heaven i Mean the heavens he meant everything beyond earths atmosphere. And when he created the earth it meant the ground that we stand on. Now under this logic it would seem that the firmament that he created would be not ground , not space, but..... yes thats right the atmosphere. In the early stages of earths life as a planet isn't it possible that the water that came from above was from the atmosphere. as thick as the plant life were. There weren't industrialized zones and no need for clear cutting so the oxygen content in the the atmosphere was extremely high.

Now what happens when the sun shines through the thick canopy of the atmosphere and warms the earth....? Don't know? well I'll tell you. When the sun shines on the earth, the rays carry along little molecules with them called.... Hydrogen. Yes thats right and we all know what happens when Hydrogen from the suns rays mixes with the Oxygen from our atmosphere, yes it creates.... Water. Yes i do believe so. And thinking because the atmosphere's densisty is really thick during this point in the earths life would only lead someone to believe one thing. That it doesn't rain very often and when it does it rains massive amounts that could cause immense flooding.

About the pacific ring of fire, The Mariannas Trench is not located anywhere near the underwater fault lines in the Pacific Ocean and if you think it does please feel free to show me. I would love to make you look like a fool. Nor is it caused by it. and if it were such a gash in the earths submersed surface would excrete massive amounts of magma that would evidentally show many or large islands in the pacific. Because we all know what happens to lava when it cools.


Misguided you say more like scrutinized.

I am a chemistry major and would love to talk table with you. Just let me know
Noob-Spree


"I'm really not what you can call an interventionist moderator, but you really need to make paragraphes, or else people wont bother much to read your otherwise brilliant replies." - B~E

[Undead Cheese]

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

This is going under the assupmtion that radio carbon dating is accurate which it is not.

Sorry, I already owned you on that one. And I like how you skipped over my first post and a good chunk of my second post. Did it kill your arguments too badly? I guess it's better if you ignore them and hope everyone else forgets about them too.

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

Fish were excluded from this list due to the fact that in many circumstances fish will undergo physiological changes to suit there surroundings i.e. salt water to fresh and vice versa. Nor were insects included.

Put a fresh water fish in salt water and do you know what happens? It dies. Sorry, he needed aquariams.

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

Now come on over to my creationist veiw on this and take a trip back to about 6000 years ago. About when the earth was still an infant.

Err ... 4.494 billion years old isn't exactly what I'd call infant when the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

There weren't industrialized zones and no need for clear cutting so the oxygen content in the the atmosphere was extremely high.

I'll take "No" for $200, Alex. It's believed that early earth's atmosphere actually had very little oxygen.

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

Now what happens when the sun shines through the thick canopy of the atmosphere and warms the earth....? Don't know? well I'll tell you.

It seems to me that you don't know.

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

When the sun shines on the earth, the rays carry along little molecules with them called.... Hydrogen.

No they don't. Sorry, but this (rather huge) factual error just ruined the rest of your nonsensical argument.

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

The Mariannas Trench is not located anywhere near the underwater fault lines in the Pacific Ocean and if you think it does please feel free to show me. I would love to make you look like a fool. Nor is it caused by it.

Well, what's a better place to look than www.marianatrench.com? Here's a quote (I've highlighted the relevent parts in red):

"The Mariana Trench is located in the Pacific Ocean, just east of the 14 Mariana Islands (11"21' North latitude and 142" 12' East longitude ) near Japan. As you probably already know, it is the deepest part of the earth's oceans, and the deepest location of the earth itself. It was created by ocean-to-ocean subduction, a phenomena in which a plate topped by oceanic crust is subducted beneath another plate topped by oceanic crust."

It would appear that I just made you look like a fool. And I can assure you it wasn't difficult. But hell, since I'm a nice guy I'll help you educate yourself on geography even more by posting a second source.

"The Mariana Trench (or Marianas Trench) is the deepest known submarine trench, and the deepest location in the Earth's crust itself. It is located in the floor of the western North Pacific Ocean, to the east of the Mariana Islands at 11° 21' North latitude and 142° 12' East longitude, which is near Japan. The trench is the boundary where two tectonic plates meet, a subduction zone where the Pacific Plate is being subducted under the Philippine Plate."

Originally Posted by Noob-Spree

I am a chemistry major and would love to talk table with you.

Chemistry major, huh? I'll assume you're failing.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

"I'm really not what you can call an interventionist moderator, but you really need to make paragraphes, or else people wont bother much to read your otherwise brilliant replies." - B~E

That's a lie.

[Noob-Spree]

Let me Guide you to the appropriate site that way there are no miscommunications regarding the flood and all the logistics.
Here Now regarding R.C.D. well you will find all the answers you are looking for right here and here No more on my part will need to be stated once you have peeked at this site right about here Enjoy Mr. Smarty pants
Noob-Spree

[Undead Cheese]

"The appropriate site?" Sorry, but your creation pseudo-science site isn't what I'd consider credible. Not only that, but the link you posted in regards to the flood doesn't work.

Now, have you not clicked any of the links I've provided? Carbon dating isn't the only method out there. Please understand this. I shall redirect you to this site again. This site kills your young-earth argument and hands it to you on a platter. Try reading it for once.

And I've noticed that you, yet again, failed to address the majority of my points. You still haven't even touched my first post, nor have you responded to a good chunk of my second post. Just now you've posted the same arguments that I have already refuted. Why have you failed to address so many of the points I've been making? Did you fail reading comprehension? You've posted time and time again about how inaccurate carbon dating supposedly is. Your source? "Creation Science Evangelism." Clearly there's no bias there! Other people have already torn you a new one on the carbon dating subject, and I've provided you with a link that demonstrates how all of the other dating methods agree with each other. Out of 17 methods, here's the numbers they came up with (in billions of years):

01. 4.21 +/- 0.76
02. 4.37 +/- 0.34
03. 4.50 +/- 0.02
04. 4.43 +/- 0.04
05. 4.52 +/- 0.04
06. 4.59 +/- 0.06
07. 4.44 +/- 0.12
08. 4.38 +/- 0.12
09. 4.49 +/- 0.12
10. 4.46 +/- 0.06
11. 4.51 +/- 0.04
12. 4.44 +/- 0.13
13. 4.53 +/- 0.19
14. 4.44 +/- 0.30
15. 4.57 +/- 0.19
16. 4.45 +/- 0.18
17. 4.57 +/- 0.21

Seems like they're all pretty close together to me. Now when all signs point in a certain direction, generally it's a good indicator that it's true. And, seriously, where in the **** did you get the idea that our oceans formed because of hydrogen from the sun?

[Lights]

Well, I believe Cheese just finished this matter up. Gg