Ãsmólfar_Järvelä
Member
I love how the bible seems to say that dinosaurs are fake, and that evolution didnt happen, then how do you explain all the things that have evolved over the years? How are things STILL evolving?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
Ãsmólfar_Järvelä
Member
Explain to me please, if evolution fidnt happen and if things dun evolve, then how do you explain all the things that did evolve and still are?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
So, to recap:
Believers claim things about god.
The Bible claims things about god, but since it was written by believers that puts us back to believers claiming things about god.
God, seeing as he has not seen fit to provide us with his e-mail, if he indeed exists, claims nothing.
So we're left with believers claiming things.
Without substantiation.
Without evidence.
Where does that leave us do you think?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
We know what put them together.
Go do some research on embryological development and find out for yourself.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
If one ignores the fact that Dinosaurs existed and died out millions of years before man ever existed.
If one ignores the fact that Dinosaurs existed and died out millions of years before man ever existed.
Look at what you are doing. You are presupposing implications of your own worldview while at the same time debating it.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
No, I am accepting the objective empirical evidence that dinosaurs existed millions of years before man existed,
Which is in direct conflict with the unsubstantiated belief that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
I disagree with the method, but i'll explain that in a minute. How do you explain the old cave carvings which imply early man encountered dinosaurs?
I don't disagree that they existed a long time ago, but millions of years is based on radiometric dating, right? Have you adjusted for the decrease in the velocity of light? Check out Implications of a Non-Constant Velocity of Light - and NO, I do NOT understand all of this. But basically, at a higher rate of velocity, more energy transfer (time) happens, thus measuring the geological record at the rate of the speed of light now, it appears that it took a gazzillion years.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
No, it is not based solely on Radiometric Dating.
There are many methods that cross confirm not only the age of the dinosaurs, but also the age of the Earth.
Such as...
Chronometric Dating
Dendrochronology.
Florine absorption.
Oxidizeable carbon dating.
Rehydroxylation dating.
Iodine-xenon dating
Obsidian hydration dating
Argonargon dating
KAr dating
Helium dating
Isochron dating
Radiocarbon dating
Rubidium-strontium dating
Samarium-neodymium dating
Uranium-lead dating
Uranium-thorium dating
Uranium-uranium dating
Fission track dating
Cosmogenic radionuclide dating
Rhenium-osmium dating
Rubidium-strontium dating
Optical dating
Spectrum analysis.
etc, etc, etc....
If you understood even the basics of some of these dating techniques, you would know that the fact that dinosaurs existed millions of years before humans did is undeniable.
And remember, none of this "proves" God does not exist.
What it does show is that a literalistic interpretation of the Torah as historical fact is flawed.
Now, do you have any objective empirical evidence that Literal Biblical Creationism is indeed scientific fact?
tumbleweed41 excuse my ignorance. Could you explain the general idea of those dating methods or an example of one or two? It seems that all of them would measuring how much time has passed by looking at some natural process and comparing it by the rate of decay (or whatever) observed today, which means it could very well be affected by a change in the speed of light. Right?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
All of these methods, and a general breakdown of each, can be found with a simple Google search.
Wrong.
As physicist and cosmologist John Barrow puts it....
" The pure number we call the fine structure constant and denote by α is a combination of the electron charge, e, the speed of light, c, and Planck's constant, h. At first we might be tempted to think that a world in which the speed of light was slower would be a different world. But this would be a mistake. If c, h, and e were all changed so that the values they have in metric (or any other) units were different when we looked them up in our tables of physical constants, but the value of α remained the same, this new world would be observationally indistinguishable from our world. The only thing that counts in the definition of worlds are the values of the dimensionless constants of Nature. If all masses were doubled in value [including the Planck mass mP] you cannot tell because all the pure numbers defined by the ratios of any pair of masses are unchanged"
petewentz
Fallout Boy
Variable speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basically, light is constant. The VSOL isn't even a theory, but a concept. It does occur, but only in specific situations and not when it's convenient for creationists.
"Let me use an untested, unproven theory to disprove a tested, proven theory in order to advance my untested, unproven theory"
It's ridiculous. Also, what Tumbleweed said is 100% correct as well. I skimmed over about 60 pages of this thread and found it funny there hasn't been any evidence for creationism, or even intelligent design yet the entire thread was propelled by attacks on evolution. Typical.
"Because this is wrong, we are right"...yea okay.
Basically, light is constant. The VSOL isn't even a theory, but a concept. It does occur, but only in specific situations and not when it's convenient for creationists.
"Let me use an untested, unproven theory to disprove a tested, proven theory in order to advance my untested, unproven theory"
It's ridiculous. Also, what Tumbleweed said is 100% correct as well. I skimmed over about 60 pages of this thread and found it funny there hasn't been any evidence for creationism, or even intelligent design yet the entire thread was propelled by attacks on evolution. Typical.
"Because this is wrong, we are right"...yea okay.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
A variable speed of light would require the properties of the vacuum to change significantly. That would be immediately, obviously, visible.
Also, the whole idea is silly. We only have constants in the first place so that we can measure things in e.g. kilograms instead of multiples of 21.7644 µg.
Last edited:
Jordan Robert Wilson
Atheist
There is no evidence for creationism. This is why creationism and evolution should not be considered to be equally plausible theories (they are treated like that if you simply look at the name of this forum-creationism vs evolution). Evolution is proven fact, it is about as debatable as whether or not the earth goes around the sun - the answer is yes. No question about it. Countless proof has been found and listed above, such as radioactive dating and dendrochronology to name just a tiny few. Creationism has no evidence. All evidence that exists is for evolution, which means it is against creationism. There is no evidence for creationism, but there is incredible evidence against it.
Yes, Jordan, rational people do know that.
You also have to realize that, if, for example, no scientist has ever researched the development of the left elbow of the gnat, and nobody knows exactly how it happened, nobody knows. Creationists then think that the answer to how the left elbow of the gnat came about, is Goddidit.
They dont know what scientific research is. They dont know what evidence is. For them the default answer to I dont know is Goddidit.
They dont realize they need evidence for their hypotheses before it is accepted in science. They dont realize that that the answer to I dont know may be the mice-like creatures on the seventh planet from the star around two million light years away from us, called psdfteid, could have done it is just as unacceptable in science as Goddidit. We need evidence for your hypothesis before it is accepted.
Creationists dont realize that even if scientists dont know something, theres literally millions of answers that can be contemplated. They think that the default answer is Goddidit. It is not.
The most logical answer at the moment is : We dont know, but we have a good idea. Every single bit of evidence we have at the moment indicates that it happened by means of the Evolution. We have empirical evidence that evolution happens, while we don't have any evidence for mice-like creatures existing on that planet."
It's called logic. Creationists don't have any.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
First you'd have to understand that life on this planet does indeed evolve. This basically means that over time life changes in various ways. Our environment can help to define a species (example: People who live in the mountains in Tibet have adapted over time to handle the high altitude thus allowing them to breath the thinner air without complication. Subsequently through evolution this has been passed down to their offspring). We know this because if you or I went to these high altitude locations we would find it difficult to breath. There are plenty of other examples but this one is to illustrate that this process happens whether we want to accept it or not. What the Theory of Evolution does is help us to understand the mechanisms behind these changes.
This doesn't explain the how. It tells us the "who or the what" but not the how. "How" does the influenza virus mutate? Does "God" cause it to mutate? Even if the answer was (yes) then we still would want to know "how" "God" caused it to mutate. Do you now see why answering everything with "God did it" is no longer acceptable? Back in the days of the unlearned and the ignorant, men in the position to spew "God did it" was acceptable by the masses because they knew no better. This is no longer the case and willful ignorance is no longer a valid excuse.
Another problem with your statement is that it it out of sync with most creationist. The traditional mantra is that something can not be created out of nothing. It's a vague statement but it has been mentioned. But the ToE is not about the origin of life. Its function is to explain existing life.
The other issue I take with the statement is if "God" can create out of nothing then why do creationist have a hard time accepting that life can evolve from unicellular or multicellular organisms........
Last edited:
