Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

I suppose this post has gone just about everywhere it can for a newsgroup. None of us can really prove our sources, and I think the wonderful world of semantics really gets the last laugh here.

The evolutionists can't accept the creationist point of view b/c its pretty much all based on a collection of ancient writings that they will never be able to prove the validity of. The creationists won't believe in evolution b/c it relies heavily on the ability to accuratly date fossils and planetary events.

So, for me, I guess it all boils down to this: Something died a long time ago, got buried and became oil, and an evolved man at my local BP station made it into gas that makes my SVT go vroooom! In fact, I think I'm going to go driving right now. See ya!

The reason you have those memories is because I put them there. I put everything everywhere. I made it 'appear' as if world is older than a day (from now).

It's easy when your omnipotent.

Well, I stand corrected on the rib comment. cpurser sent me an email with a web site that explains how ribs actually do regenerate themselves. So that is cool. I'd hate for my wife to be one rib up on me. :-) LOL

Here is the web site if anyone is interested.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp

If I were talking about a lizard, I would call it one...

Ok so they might not be accurate to the same year or century....but are you telling me that these methods cannot show such a vast difference, like that between millions of years and thousands!? Oh yeah, didn't they do a carbon dating on the shround of turin? I don't remember the results, but if they coincided with the time of Jesus' death, what would you say about that? And what if they are found in the same strata? The earth is a constantly moving thing. Earthquakes, floods, erosion, volcanic eruptions...any one of these things could uncover fossils and move them around. So what?

No, what I'm saying is that weather and the various other elements mentioned above "could" have uncovered a footprint, or a land that was hard dry desert, then a change in weather or something...water softened the ground, primitave man wandered through there, viola 2 footprints from 2 different times. Doesn't mean fossils mean jack, it means things aren't always as they seem. And I don't know what you're talking about when you mention bone structure...I didn't say anything about that so you lost me on that one.

Take away the water on this planet. The coast of Mexico IS a freaking crater! And there are various other giant craters around this world..what's the one in the US? Mile high or something...Can I provide evidence it did wipe out life on earth. Well, there is a layer of some type of mineral or something (sorry I do not remember the exact names) in the ground, found in various parts of the world, where such a mineral is not otherwise found in the ground - Which makes sense that something at that time (looking at layers of earth is like looking at rings of a tree) blew a ****load of crap into the air, and it settled all over the world. We know that such an explosion that put that much debris in the air would have blackened our sky, blocking out the sun, killing plantlife, freezing animals, and those that did not die from freezing simply starved to death. Not to mention those erradicated by the initial blast, firestorm, shockwaves and tidal waves caused by such an impact. Yeah, species could die from environmental changes, but these changes do not just happen overnight. Something had to happen fast enough to kill dinosaurs and everything else before they had a chance to adapt. How do we have proof that these asteroids could cause so much damage? Well, aside from the obvious, and data collected from our own nuclear tests back when we were still testing, we just recently witnessed the shumacher-levy comet slamming into Jupiter - and comets are generally not made of the same hard rock or metal ore that asteroids are. The damages caused are well documented and the planet still bears a scar.

So the dinosaurs died, small mammals survived and adapted, and continued to evolve. Sure...if life were COMPLETELY wiped out, evolution could have started over, but then who says things would have happened the same exact way they did before, producing the same exact species, etc.

The Bible still was written only a couple of thousand years ago, no mention of dinosaurs or the catastrophic events that led to their demise. Mentions of giant lizards make sense. There still are close relatives to dinosaurs walking this earth. Alligators, crocodiles, kimodo dragons, other reptiles.

Prove it. I gave evidence stating why you're wrong, now you have to prove your position, and why my evidence is invalid.

Your statement would never stand up to legal or scientific scrutiny without evidence to back it up.

You put the ball in our court, I provided evidence and lobbed it back into your court. Now the burden to provide evidence is on you.

TheGreatOne:

"If I were talking about a lizard, I would call it one..."

Yeah, if it was actually called a "lizard" back then...

"Ok so they might not be accurate to the same year or century....but are you telling me that these methods cannot show such a vast difference, like that between millions of years and thousands!?"

Man, have you not read any of the past posts? All types of dating have huge assumptions built into them. (Read back a few pages for some posts for those assumptions.) As I and others have posted evidence for before, and no scientist will dispute, carbon dating is not anywhere near accurate beyond 40,000 years old, due to the half-life of carbon 14. As for the shround of turin, I never gave evidence that the shroud is real, and I never quoted the age of the shroud.

"...weather and the various other elements mentioned above "could" have uncovered a footprint, or a land that was hard dry desert, then a change in weather or something...water softened the ground, primitave man wandered through there....."

Oh, so after millions of years, rain and weather softens stone, a man steps into the dino footprint, and then it turns back into stone... Makes sense to me!! :rolleyes: Please excuse my sarcasism, but man! Come on!

"...various other giant craters around this world..what's the one in the US? Mile high or something..."

Must be the Rocky Mountains... or maybe the Smoky Mountains.... :rolleyes:

The Great One, you state that creationists' evidence is false when we find human remains in the same strata as dinosaur remains...You say that the earth is always changing (Volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.)
You then offer your evidence for an asteroid impact as a layer of strata that is common the world over. You can't have both...which one is it? Are the strata correct or not?

This kind of circular reasoning is the best you've got?

I have a bumper sticker one my truck that says it all " I believein the big bang theory, God said bang and it happened!!

Omnipotent being doesn't need to represent evidence. His word is divine knowledge.

And since the existence of omnipotent being is possible, according to many billions of people on this planet, what's to say I'm not an omnipotent being capable of performing any action or presenting any situation.
Unless, this court will not consider the possibility of the existence of a supreme being (me), meaning any creation that requires the supreme being (me again) could not have possibly happened.

Creation requires a creator; if you won't at least consider me being a creator then you are dismissing the possibility of a creator. Hence, no creation.

Scientist doesn?t study whether there is a god or not. He studies what CAN happen without external influence (god). This might sound like just leaving god out, but then again, do raindrops really need god's divine interference to form.

So, is it possible for me to be Omnipotent being that created everything yesterday as they appear (memories, canyons, pictures, etc)?

Excuse, me...Omnipotent one? What's my middle name? Answer correctly and I will follow you!
:rolleyes: