http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Enjoy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html

Dinosaur footprints in coal -

sort of a problem for creationism.

(since coal was created during

the flood)

No replies from the creationists?

I'm sick and tired of both sides doing this shit: You can't just fucking post a link and say, "There's the evidence." Fucking formulate an arguement with citations, perhaps? AND a link?

Also, understand this, you're not going to change anybody's mind with a talkorigins link. The literal Creationists think the Bible is infallible (despite hundreds of years of editing), they aren't going to listen to sound science if there's a distorted version of the facts that supports their view. Their cognitive dissonance will always sort things out so that their version of the 'truth' does not change.

Fuck it then.

You know why you didn't get any response, Jimmy ?

Not only is this topic old, but using Talk Origins as your supporting evidence just proves the level of maturity you posses with regards to your own spirituality (not related to any religion in particular).

I have posted about 50 links showing how the coal beds and fossils DISPROVE evolution, and prove that there was a worldwide flood that anihilated everything.

But, you wouldn't read it if I posted it AGAIN, so I won't bother.

Suffice it to say, this topic wasn't worth debating...and that's why it wasn't.

You asked. *shrugs innocently*

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I'm sick and tired of both sides doing this shit: You can't just fucking post a link and say, "There's the evidence." Fucking formulate an arguement with citations, perhaps? AND a link?

Also, understand this, you're not going to change anybody's mind with a talkorigins link. The literal Creationists think the Bible is infallible (despite hundreds of years of editing), they aren't going to listen to sound science if there's a distorted version of the facts that supports their view. Their cognitive dissonance will always sort things out so that their version of the 'truth' does not change.

Wow...don't forget to put on your "Bigot" hat today !

*shakes head sadly*

Tell yourself whatever you've got to in attempt to eliminate your guilt, but if you spend any serious time studying the Bible and Christianity, the truth about the religion itself (not the contents of it) completely refutes your opinion of it.

Angst is a biotch.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

using Talk Origins as your supporting evidence just proves the level of maturity you posses with regards to your own spirituality

How? I posted a link to a site-

It is a clear concise document

that directly addresses the main

questions about creationism vs.

evolution.

They do a better job explaining

everything than I can, regardless

of bias.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

the coal beds and fossils DISPROVE evolution, and prove that there was a worldwide flood that anihilated everything



That is laughable, at best.

Twisted strange little world

inside your head isn't it?

Side note: I was raised a

Christian, spent 14 years

going to church.

At some point you admit to

yourself it's all bullshit.

Fairy tales and blah blah blah.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You know why you didn't get any response, Jimmy ?

Not only is this topic old, but using Talk Origins as your supporting evidence just proves the level of maturity you posses with regards to your own spirituality (not related to any religion in particular).

I have posted about 50 links showing how the coal beds and fossils DISPROVE evolution, and prove that there was a worldwide flood that anihilated everything.

But, you wouldn't read it if I posted it AGAIN, so I won't bother.

Suffice it to say, this topic wasn't worth debating...and that's why it wasn't.

You asked. *shrugs innocently*



Wow. That's a bold face lie if I ever heard one.

If you have so many, then I invite you to post one of them here, so that this thread gets the "debate" you claim it wasn't worth of having now.

If the research pointed to the

creation, that would be our

scientific perspective now.

See, that's how science works -

It goes wherever the evidence leads.

Most of the scientists who

developed our modern theory

on evolution were christians.

There's not some big evil

conspiracy to control society

with evolution propaganda.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Wow. That's a bold face lie if I ever heard one.

If you have so many, then I invite you to post one of them here, so that this thread gets the "debate" you claim it wasn't worth of having now.

To be fair, she actually, did do that when she first joined. The arguments were a bit circumstantial and a bit hypocritical (as, the way it was put to me, a alrge part of what makes religion special and powerful within a person is a measure of faith outside of any physical proof, but that's jsut opinion) but they were indeed here. Try the archives.

If you say so. There's nothing in the archive of her speaking of anything remotely connected to evolution.

I know she's posted links, that I know, and do not deny. What I don't think is true it that those links where that many, secondly that they somehow managed to "Disprove evolution", which is what she said:

"I have posted about 50 links showing how the coal beds and fossils DISPROVE evolution"

The Book of Genesis states that our planet was created three days before the sun, moon, and stars. The purposes of the stars relate directly to the earth: to provide a calendar system (Gen. 1:14) and to declare God's glory to men (Ps. 1)

oh-tay!

[This message has been edited by Viraljimmy (edited 03-03-2005).]

SN 1987a is a star that went supernova in 1987. Scientists have been studying this event for nearly 15 years, watching the explosion proceed from the star and out into space where it caused a ring of gas surrounding the star to start glowing about a year after the initial supernova event.

SN 1987 is about 160,000 light years away. If the creationist explanation were true, then none of these events are real, but rather are "lies" from God.

quote:How? I posted a link to a site-

It is a clear concise document

that directly addresses the main

questions about creationism vs.

evolution.

They do a better job explaining

everything than I can, regardless

of bias.

It is concise if you don't consider the fact that there are 100's of other possibilities...

It addresses evolution vs. creationism without a hint of objectivity, since the sites purpose is to refute creationism.

I don't see how that is scientific.

If science alone could prove that Creationism is crap, then sites like Talk Origins wouldn't need to exist.

There would be no debate.

quote:That is laughable, at best.

Twisted strange little world

inside your head isn't it?

Side note: I was raised a

Christian, spent 14 years

going to church.

At some point you admit to

yourself it's all bullshit.

Fairy tales and blah blah blah.

It is laughable to someone who hasn't spent any time studying the "flood" evidence.

Posting Talk Origins proves you haven't studied it, or else you'd know both sides.

By the way, being raised as a Christian doesn't mean you went to a good church. Nor does it mean that you paid any attention to the teaching, even if you did go to a good church.

Mormons claim to be Christian, yet they do not follow the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

So, saying that means virtually nothing.

You have given no indication that you understand one single letter of the Bible.

Please feel free to do so at any time. I would love to debate it all, if you truly have the understanding.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Wow. That's a bold face lie if I ever heard one.

If you have so many, then I invite you to post one of them here, so that this thread gets the "debate" you claim it wasn't worth of having now.

Here on Totse alone, I have posted the links at LEAST 50 times.

So, I need to modify that statement: I did not post 50 different links.

I've probably posted about 20, at different times.

Better, Rust ?

You of all people should be able to reference such a link...why should I do it again ? (this proves you didn't read them !)

You know I can. *laughs*

So, here: "Coal is usually found in layers which requires the practice of strip mining for it’s removal. Evolutionists claim that coal formed in swamps during the Carboniferous period about 250 million years ago. However, coal layers at various depths, with strata layers between, often have coal seams which connect the upper layer to the lower. Evolutionists can’t explain this.

Dr. Steven Austin of ICR postulated a theory which fits the evidence. During a global flood, large mats of vegetation floated on the surface, dropping the layers of plant debris which were quickly buried by flood deposited sediments. The connecting coal seam formed at the point where the mat course changed due to tides, winds, etc.

Also Carbon 14 (which is measured in carbon dating) should decay away in less than 50,000 to 200,000 years. Yet coal, which is said to be 5,000 times this old, has never been found without C-14 in it. The evidence indicates that coal was formed in a recent worldwide flood. For more on this and related subjects, please see CESM DVD 2 and 3, life Seminars 2, 4 and 6 or Service Message "Global Flood Theory"." http://www.creationministries.org/faq.asp

And that doesn't even go into very much depth. Imagine how good it gets when he starts getting "scientific".

http://www.creationministries.org/resources.asp#video

I challenge any of you to take a serious look at evolution by considering what this guy has to say.

He is, by the way, a scientist with a few degrees under his belt. He's no "Christian Idiot".

If you can't even spend a few bucks to try and learn more about what YOU believe (by understanding every angle), then you shouldn't be questioning it at all.

Just buy the first CD...I guarantee it will give you a very different perspective on evolution.

What if your soul depended on it ?

As a matter of fact...I'll make you all a deal. I'LL BUY IT, and then send you copies. I live in the same small town as this guy. I could get permission to copy within a week.

My email address is ladyofthemyst@hotmail.com

It's a dummy address, so don't bother sending virus' to it.

I use it for things just like this.

quote:Originally posted by Gorloche:

To be fair, she actually, did do that when she first joined. The arguments were a bit circumstantial and a bit hypocritical (as, the way it was put to me, a alrge part of what makes religion special and powerful within a person is a measure of faith outside of any physical proof, but that's jsut opinion) but they were indeed here. Try the archives.

Thanks.

I've actually been doing it (posting links) the whole time...

I am not really in need of physical proof, so by posting these findings, I don't think myself to be hypocritical to my faith.

I post it in order to offer the answers they all seek.

I actually came to God by faith first, and studied the physical proofs afterwards (which only added confirmation).

But...you were here when I joined ?

Dude...I don't remember you ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If you say so. There's nothing in the archive of her speaking of anything remotely connected to evolution.

I know she's posted links, that I know, and do not deny. What I don't think is true it that those links where that many, secondly that they somehow managed to "Disprove evolution", which is what she said:

"I have posted about 50 links showing how the coal beds and fossils DISPROVE evolution"

Of course you don't.

To begin with, you must believe in the possibility of evolution being disproved to accept the evidence I have given.

Science ends up being mostly about opinion, when you really think about it.

So, again...I clarify...TOTALLY, I have posted that many links that refute evolution (let's just leave "proving" out of this, for now, since that is not what the argument was supposed to be about). They may not have been specific to fossils or coal beds ALONE.

It was an exaggeration on my part, when dealing specifically with coal beds and fossils.

Every site I have posted regarding evolution had something in it about fossils and dating methods, though. (refuting the methods used to prove the theory of evolution, that is)

Sorry I wasn't more clear and exact.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

SN 1987a is a star that went supernova in 1987. Scientists have been studying this event for nearly 15 years, watching the explosion proceed from the star and out into space where it caused a ring of gas surrounding the star to start glowing about a year after the initial supernova event.

SN 1987 is about 160,000 light years away. If the creationist explanation were true, then none of these events are real, but rather are "lies" from God.

"Let me point out a few things to be considered:

God made a mature creation including stars and starlight (Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 45:12 and Jeremiah 10:12).

There is no way to accurately measure how far away stars are. They are a long ways away but no one can say how long it takes light to get here when we don’t know how far away the stars are.

The speed of light can vary. The New York Times reported that 2 independent science teams at Harvard report slowing light to a dead stop and that the NEC Research Institute at Princeton increased light pulses to 300 times it’s current speed. If mankind can speed up light, the starlight question becomes a non-issue since God could certainly do so.

If stars evolve, star births should exceed star deaths. Although many star deaths have been observed, never has a star birth been seen.

Various theories include looking at red shifts, the Doppler effect, etc. There are several viable theories on why we can see starlight from distant sources. Personally, I believe that scripture answers the questions. Together with the variability in the speed of light, the starlight issue becomes a non-issue for a young creation. An emerging theory on starlight comes from Dr. Russell Humphries of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). I would suggest you review his theory should you want to see an interesting and technical explanation that fits with known scientific facts." http://www.creationministries.org/faq.asp

Starlight and the age of the universe: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-121.htm

1. All of the caluculations are mathematically proven. The assumptions he claims are taken, would only produce minor effects, certainly not anything that would even come close to dating the earth at 6,000 years.

Moroever, the example he cites, about the discrepancies in Hubble's constant, doesn't serve to support his argumet, since regardless of whether we take the highest value in debate, or the lowest value, it still produces lenghts that completely go against creationism.

2. "

A few creationists have argued that the universe really isn't that big. In particular, Slusher, working for the Institute for Creation Research, argued in 1980 that the universe is based on a Riemannian space which allowed no point to be more than 15.71 light-years away. The great distances observed would be an illusion based on mistaking the Riemannian space for Euclidean space.

This model, however, requires that the distance to supernova SN1987A be measured at less than 15.71 light-years in contradiction to the 170,000 light-years actually measured. Unexploded versions of SN1987A would be seen at the same time, one of them being at a perceived distance of 170,000 light-years! A few decades later, the light from the explosion would circle around again, thus causing us to see SN1987A explode all over again! This is madness, not science! See Strahler (1987, pp.114-116) for a thorough debunking of this Riemannian space nonsense. (George Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, 1826-1866, was a German mathematician whose work on curved space proved helpful to Einstein, but not with the absurd radius of curvature assigned by Slusher!)"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html



3.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411_1.html

4.

Number four isn't even an argument. They're simply saying that the bible says so, therefore it must be true: Circular Logic. Circular Logic isn't evidence.

It's fine that they believe the Bible to be true by faith, but that doesn't serve as any kind of scientific evidence, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument against the distance of the stars.

---

Anything else you want me to address Digital Savior?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-05-2005).]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa there...slow down, Cowboy !

Which article are you copying that from ?

Second, I haven't the faintest idea what you just said, so I will leave this for a better time.

Also, I ban Talk Origins ! *lol*

Come up with something scientific, Rust...just as I have to.

I can't reply to the rest right now...my Ambien kicked in.

Sleepy time.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-121.htm

I'm replying to that article, the one you posted.

Talk Origins IS scientific, and obviosuly what you provided isn't, since it was so easily refuted by Science.

EDIT: I initially said, "From your article" which is probably what caused the mistake, I apologize.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-05-2005).]

Where are you going to find

information about evolution

that isn't from a "biased"

"secular" source.

Less than .15% of scientists

are creationists.

"Various theories include looking at red shifts, the Doppler effect, etc. There are several viable theories on why we can see starlight from distant sources. Personally, I believe that scripture answers the questions."

Oh yes, very scientific. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

As I recall, you've provided this stuff before, and it was refuted. You yourself said that creationministries' experiments were " a joke". What's the deal? Change your mind?

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 03-04-2005).]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

"Various theories include looking at red shifts, the Doppler effect, etc. There are several viable theories on why we can see starlight from distant sources. Personally, I believe that scripture answers the questions."

Oh yes, very scientific. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

As I recall, you've provided this stuff before, and it was refuted. You yourself said that creationministries' experiments were " a joke". What's the deal? Change your mind?



First of all, I didn't ever say that they were a joke, and you didn't refute ANYTHING.

I posted his little science projects page, and they were a bit elementary. That is the gist of what I said.

I also said above that what I just posted was only the tip of the iceburg.

If you want to hear the "science", get the CD !!

I have told you that before, too.

Thanks, MIND.

There is a ton of stuff out there like this. Great debates (far better than I could ever participate in).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Thanks.

I've actually been doing it (posting links) the whole time...

I am not really in need of physical proof, so by posting these findings, I don't think myself to be hypocritical to my faith.

I post it in order to offer the answers they all seek.

I actually came to God by faith first, and studied the physical proofs afterwards (which only added confirmation).

But...you were here when I joined ?

Dude...I don't remember you ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

I've been here for a while now, though this name is relatively new. I don't see a purpose on chipping in on everything, just the things where information I have needs to be.