Creationists' theory in detail

[harmonica]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing ...

God created the possibility to make theories. So you are able to make a theory about the creation of the heavens and worlds. Tell me what had happened 15 billion years ago. What are we a able to say about this not existing time - except there was nothing? Absolutelly nothing - no idea what to say else about this not-time, not-space, ... . How was the universe be able to come from this nothing - not existing 15 billion years ago - and started "suddenly" to be in a first plank-time?

How did God start?

..that is way, way, way beyond anyone's knowledge = so, if someone tries to answer that, they are just babbling = no facts/etc

 

[harmonica]

you don't know much do you? like human babies can't talk like humans--just like chimps can't talk like humans--and it's because they have about the same larynx postion--
Descent of the larynx in chimpanzee infants
go play with the kids, where you belong

I can tell you better, apes are descendants of humans.

Lots of chromosome studies back up my affirmation. Chromosome tails and junctions cause a human to acquire ape's similarities.

On the other hand, not a single chromosome manipulation or anomaly causes an ape to acquire human's similarity.

Your theory of evolution is a fake.

a theory can't be fake...please learn the definition
the·o·ry
/ˈTHirē/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

 

[progressive hunter]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

 

[alang1216]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

 

[ding]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

Not to sidetrack the conversation but how does the theory of evolution disprove a creator exactly?

 

[alang1216]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

Not to sidetrack the conversation but how does the theory of evolution disprove a creator exactly?

It doesn't. You can't prove or disprove a creator by science. The two realms don't intersect.

What has always fascinated me is that some people of faith will look at the world they believe their creator made and completely ignore what he created and how he created it based on their interpretation of a book copied and recopied for millennia by fallible men.

 

[ding]

It doesn't. You can't prove or disprove a creator by science. The two realms don't intersect.

How about through reason?

 

[ding]

What has always fascinated me is that some people of faith will look at the world they believe their creator made and completely ignore what he created and how he created it based on their interpretation of a book copied and recopied for millennia by fallible men.

You mean like Thomas Aquinas?

 

[progressive hunter]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

arent you assuming those layers are the exact same as those on the other side of the planet,,and also arent you assuming they got laid down over millions of yrs???

YES YOU ARE,,,

 

[Hollie]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

arent you assuming those layers are the exact same as those on the other side of the planet,,and also arent you assuming they got laid down over millions of yrs???

YES YOU ARE,,,

No assumption required,,,, you will be surprised to learn that those evilutionist scientists have methods to date materials beyond 6,000 years,,,,

YES THEY DO,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Hollie]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

Other than the slogan you saw at the ICR, you don’t know what a geo column is, right,,,,,,,,,?

 

[zaangalewa]

....realistic perception of god????!!!!! there is no god--your whole post there is worthless because you mention god

What's your belief. And one of the main reason for the intolerance of atheists is the problem not to be able to separate the own knowledge and the own belief. Unfortunatelly most atheists today seem to believe not to believe.

belief of what? intolerance?--who is intolerant of what? your post is nonsensical
''seem to believe not to believe'' ---?????

Atheism is a religious belief and atheists often deny that atheism is a religious belief => Atheists often believe not to believe. And because they "know", what they are not able to know, lots of atheists are intolerant. Some organized atheist (for example the Soviets) had by the way another reason to be intolerant against all other forms of religious beliefs. They needed atheists for their mass movements. And they knew very well that all serios religions all over the world have moral laws which exclude ideas like "The end justifies the means." or justify a 'pragmatism' like "Right or wrong, my party.", "Right or wrong, my people.", "Right or wrong, my country." and so on.

hahhahah
.....I have seen many posts in many threads how the CHRISTIANS are not only intolerant, but they are jackasses.......I try to discuss civilly and they start insulting/etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and they claim to be christians!!!!!!!
......you must not know the definition of religion..there is no way ''''atheism''' can be a religious belief

..also, calling people atheist is really ridiculous..since there is no god and no one can prove it, it's like making up a word about people who do not believe in unicorns/Santa/tooth fairy/etc .....I do not believe in god because I can't not believe in something that is not there = there is no god
...
re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   
   Similar:
   faith
   worship
   creed
   teaching
   doctrine
   theology
   sect
   cult
   religious group
   faith community

How human beings describe the world with words is not the problem. Formal structures like human language or human mathematics or human laws and other thoughts, which we use to make declarations, are unimportant. The important thing is what is behind the words - what is the nature of all the things, when we speak about - what is the reality of this all. And the reality is very simple in this case: All human beings are religious - whether we like this or not is not the point. It's for me personally for example absolutelly impossible to believe the universe is a senseless thing - and I guess that's for everyone else impossible too. I doubt about the seriousness of people who say nothing makes sense. Without any doubt the world all around us (including us on our own) has a structure. We are the universe. Everyone of us is universe. And the universe has no outside, so it is not possible to get an objective position. Everyone and each thing is always in the middle of the universe (because it expands from all points into all directions). So why needs everyone a whole universe all around? Very simple: otherwise we could not live and not ask such stupid questions. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Religion is the rebound in god - or the rebound in spirituality: A Buddhist for example is not an atheist, if he believes not in god. And someone, who never believes in anything, what others say to him, is just simple a poor guy, who has on his own not a real idea. This form of belief has nothing to do with religion. But it is without any doubt a form of religious belief not to believe in god and to formulate a not knowable sentence like "God is not existing". If you had really watched the world, in which you live, with the own open eyes, then you never (or nearly never) heard a Christian say "God exists". We do not reduce god to such a formula. We speak about the belief in god. Someone who says "I believe in god" says he trusts in god. He makes not a philosophical or scientific statement with such a sentence. He speaks about his hopes and his way to live. He speaks about humanity and family, about friends, his community, his country, the society and about good ways and bad ways for human beings, who are not lost in the universe, because everyone is a child of god.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All human beings are religious

Maybe. If so, that's an artifact of primitive humans and of evolution. So is the tendency to kill your neighbors in the next clan over steal what they have. Yes, this hardwired tendency, similarly to the dubious claims you are making, exists also whether or not you like it.

You haven't given any good reason to defer to this artifact of primitive humanity, nor any good reason why we can't rise above it. Because we can, and we do.

 

[james bond]

And you believe in a six thousand year old earth. 'nuff said...

It's common sense and observation. We know rocks crack and crumble in time due to weathering, chemical, and mechanical processes. Even with synthetic rock, cement, we see our concrete driveways crack and chip in years time. Thus, the fossil record nor the sedimentary rock layers can't be that old. Especially, if we have soft tissue inside them like dinosaur fossils. It's common sense, but those who claim long time Earth has gone bonkers.

The Earth is suppose to be billions of years old based on a meteor. That would've have experienced collisions in space. You even have a hypothesis of the Earth being hit by a large asteroid and destroying it in no time. If that's common sense and astrophysics, then we couldn't have millions and billions of years Earth.

stfu bond, you said you wouldn't post anymore, but you're back. And still saying the same bullshit that you always did. You didn't learn anything during your hiatus?

Tell me what you learned?

Haha. Can't take it? It's the truth. Common sense tells us that millions and billions of years has not happened on Earth yet. The universe and Earth go through so many changes that something catastrophic would have happened. The evidence is right in the mouths of those cowardly lowly atheists who are afraid of extinction by large asteroid.

I only took a break from this board. Learned that the smarter atheists have more sophisticated arguments which makes creationists realize they are even more hopeless. IOW, the smarter the atheist is, the more doomed they are. In your case, it's an after thought.

Moreover, atheists are usually wrong. They are always wrong about their religion unless the Lake of Fire is your desired destination.

No, you're absolutely wrong. period, full stop. Wow....

See what I mean? Your trivial assertions mean nothing. You and harmonica should get a room. Face it, the rocks and fossils would have crumbled and turned to dust. Thus, james bond has solved another case. What's next? Watching James Bond 18 sometime in 2020.

 

[alang1216]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

arent you assuming those layers are the exact same as those on the other side of the planet,,and also arent you assuming they got laid down over millions of yrs???

YES YOU ARE,,,

Yes and no. The layers shown here are the exact same as those are found in Morocco. No assumptions needed, only your own eyes are needed.

Are these layers millions of years old? Without a doubt if you know geology. Just consider what they have been through. They were laid down as sediments in shallow seas and buried deeply enough to be fused into rock. Then they crashed into Africa and the seas dried up as the land rose. It continued to rise as the layers got folded into anticlines and, like the layers in the photo, synclines. Eventually mountains arose and were eroded once they stopped rising. Then North America and Africa split apart and the Atlantic grew, about as fast as your fingernails grow. That process alone took 60 or so million years. Add in the time for deposition and mountain building and the accepted date for these rocks, 300 million years, starts to make sense.

I'm just talking off the top of my head so the exact numbers are wrong but they are the correct order of magnitude and there is physical evidence to support everything I said. The one making assumptions is you.

 

[Hollie]

And you believe in a six thousand year old earth. 'nuff said...

It's common sense and observation. We know rocks crack and crumble in time due to weathering, chemical, and mechanical processes. Even with synthetic rock, cement, we see our concrete driveways crack and chip in years time. Thus, the fossil record nor the sedimentary rock layers can't be that old. Especially, if we have soft tissue inside them like dinosaur fossils. It's common sense, but those who claim long time Earth has gone bonkers.

The Earth is suppose to be billions of years old based on a meteor. That would've have experienced collisions in space. You even have a hypothesis of the Earth being hit by a large asteroid and destroying it in no time. If that's common sense and astrophysics, then we couldn't have millions and billions of years Earth.

stfu bond, you said you wouldn't post anymore, but you're back. And still saying the same bullshit that you always did. You didn't learn anything during your hiatus?

Tell me what you learned?

Haha. Can't take it? It's the truth. Common sense tells us that millions and billions of years has not happened on Earth yet. The universe and Earth go through so many changes that something catastrophic would have happened. The evidence is right in the mouths of those cowardly lowly atheists who are afraid of extinction by large asteroid.

I only took a break from this board. Learned that the smarter atheists have more sophisticated arguments which makes creationists realize they are even more hopeless. IOW, the smarter the atheist is, the more doomed they are. In your case, it's an after thought.

Moreover, atheists are usually wrong. They are always wrong about their religion unless the Lake of Fire is your desired destination.

No, you're absolutely wrong. period, full stop. Wow....

See what I mean? Your trivial assertions mean nothing. You and harmonica should get a room. Face it, the rocks and fossils would have crumbled and turned to dust. Thus, james bond has solved another case. What's next? Watching James Bond 18 sometime in 2020.

It’s difficult to know what case you solved when you offered no facts, evidence or argument to present a case.

ID’iot creationists are always wrong because they have no case to present for a young earth or a flat earth.

I understand you must abdicate reason and rationality regarding the gods and delve into the supernatural (and metaphysical), because reason and rationality do not survive in the realm of the supernatural. Arguments that rely on supernaturalism are useless for drawing conclusions because ultimately, there's no requirement for the conclusions to be valid or not. They produce nothing of any real utility for problem solving.

This is characteristic of creationist babble in general and theology in particular. When arguing in the void of evidence, the best that can be assembled is an appeal to supernatural / metaphysical human constructs, ie:, gods. These are ideas with no obvious connection to reality and truth. This is why science cures disease, looks back in time to the very edge of our universe and sends humans into outer space, while Flat Earth creationism and theology do not.

 

[james bond]

It’s difficult to know what case you solved when you offered no facts, evidence or argument to present a case.

It's backed by the scientific method. Rocks get worn down by weathering, chemical, and mechanical processes. These are all natural processes. We also have had many catastrophes where it causes great upheaval. The atheist scientists ignore all of this happening over millions and billions of years and claim the oldest layers are on the bottom and newest are on top. That is impossible with all the processes we see have happened in the history of the world. Your scientists live in fantasy land and atheists believe in the false science of evolution. They have had the wool pulled over their eyes by Satan. How else am I to explain it?

 

[zaangalewa]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing ...

God created the possibility to make theories. So you are able to make a theory about the creation of the heavens and worlds. Tell me what had happened 15 billion years ago. What are we a able to say about this not existing time - except there was nothing? Absolutelly nothing - no idea what to say else about this not-time, not-space, ... . How was the universe be able to come from this nothing - not existing 15 billion years ago - and started "suddenly" to be in a first plank-time?

.

except there was nothing? Absolutelly nothing

the universe is cyclical, ...

No. Except something is wrong with our ideas about entropy and the universe is not flat. And a cyclical universe would not explain why there's not only nothing. Why exists something? What's the "idea" (=reality) behind the existence of the universe and our own existence?

 

[zaangalewa]

In the final analyse one could postulate all sorts of First Causes. ...

No. A first cause is uncaused. That's why it is a first cause. That's all. You are able to follow in physics the energy of a cause (the voice) and you're able to see the effects of such a cause. But this means not automatically to be able to understand the message. Otherwise a rock musician with some trillion giga electron volts would be always right and the whispering wind would be always wrong.

In the final analyse one could postulate all sorts of Uncauses. The onus is on those who choose that route to prove that their Uncause is truly the One responsible for everything, and why all others are wrong.

Happy now? The sentiment is still the same.

No. The whole universe has a first cause - is physically uncaused, although it is physically existing or is all physical reality at all. Whatelse is uncaused? No one and nothing in this universe is able to destroy or to create energy.

 

[james bond]

youre assuming that the rock layers are an accurate depiction of how life evolved on the planet,,,
which brings us back to is evolution even true,,,

thats called circular reasoning and fails as a fact based scientific practice,,

Incorrect. The fossils found in rock layers are an accurate reflection of what was living at the time the layers were deposited. If those fossils and their timing don't fit into the theory of evolution, the theory would be falsified, not the data. So far, of the trillions of fossils we have found, everyone fits neatly into the ToE. No circular reasoning.

(Sorry for the delay in replying but, for reasons unknown, I had you on ignore.)

that might be true if the geo column existed anywhere other than on the pages of a book

You're obviously not a geologist or someone who lives in an area of road cuts. Drive through western Virginia and every road cut will let you see a series of rock layers. No book required, you can see them for yourself.

Your millions of years theory is worthless. It's convenient of you to start with what we have in place and no discussion of how it got there.

Anyway, how did these mountains occur? How do you explain those bent rocks?

Moreover, you ignore the seafloor and sedimentary particles. How are these related? Your geology is worthless.