Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Quote Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Absolute nonsense. There may indeed have been this 'seventh layer' you talk about, but it was millions, if not billions, of years before the first man-ape walked around on his furry little legs. i.e. Pre-dates any human activity.
According to some, sure. Of course, it would be perfectly convenient for it to have been there only thousands of years ago...but that would support Creationism, so we can't have that now, can we?
Science isn't about convenience. You can't just back an idea because it enforces what you already believe.

Well, yes, sometimes. Though, they would have been wrong at the time. For example, a 13th century Polish monk once claimed that the mongols (which he called 'tartars') had 'the head of a dog'. This is of course, not true. Similarly, the creation story was based upon the limited knowledge of simple people, and bears no relevance today.
Unfortunately for your argument, Mongols have since been proven not to have heads of dogs, whereas Creationism has not been proven untrue.
Well, yes, it has, repeatedly. That's why they dig up dinosaur bones, and neandethals, and trylobites and stuff. That's why geologists have dated the earth to 4billion years old. Creationism has, rather definitely, been proven wrong. Maybe not Intelligent Design, but certainly creationism.

Again, incorrect. The mountains were far higher. For example, the range of mountains that runs down through scandinavia, and winds up in Scotland (across the sea due to variou geological events) were once much, much higher than the Himalayas are today. The reason they shrunk is because the tectonic forces acting on them ceased, so they were gradually worn down.
If that were true, there would be fossils of land animals -- especially those that dwell in higher altitudes -- deep into the sea. Which there's not. Also, if they were extremely high and only erosion has "shrunk" them, they would have steeper sides and duller peaks.
They don't dig deep in the sea. Cause of the water. Plus, there's layers of dirt and silt between the sea-bed and any fossils. Whatsmore, fossiles are less likely to occur on land than on sea- wrong kind of soil.
And have you actually seen Scottish mountains? They're peaks are incredibly dull. Benn McDuigh, for example, has a flat peak about 40 feet across, and rather steep sides.

I can indeed 'say that "continental shift" brought fossilized sea creatures hundreds of miles inland and thousands upon thousands of feet above sea level.' because that's what happened. I don't understand why that idea is so incredible.
Because for one thing, the fossils are of sea creatures that supposedly hadn't "evolved" yet at the time some "scientists" would have estimated the area they're in would have still been underwater. As in, if bass evolved a million years ago, you're only going to find fossilized bass in places that there could have been bass a million years ago -- not places that have been out of water for many million years. Unless, of course, they were carried high out of the water by some type of freak "flood", deposited, and fossilized since.
You don't understand the concept, do you? you're analysis of the bass, although I realise hypothetical, is completely unapplicable to reality. That's why they've found two halves of the same bird in Brazil and Africa- not just the top and bottom, either. Split vertically, so the knew the bones were definitely the same. That could only be cause by continental drift, not a flood.

The weight of water would not, I repeat, NOT cause mountains to rise. Water is not nearly as heavy as rocks. The himalayas, for example, were created by two continetal plates, weighing hundreds of billion sof tonnes, smashing into each other. Water is just something that goes on top of the rocks, it doesn't move them about.
So you're saying water doesn't change terrain. Nice. Try again.

Water has more than enough weight to form bowls and push up peaks. They're called seas/oceans and mountains. Here's to hoping you can't be so ignorant as to deny this.
OK, I admit that it sounded like I denied that water alters terrain. What I meant was, water has no effect on terrain the size of a continent. Seas, mountains and oceans are caused by continetal drift, as I have explained. You can't say that the evidence for your theories lies in the fact that mountains and seas exist- if that worked, you could use anything to prove anything.
Water is rather incredibly light compared to, say, the Alps. Water couldn't push up the Alps, no matter how much you got. Besides, as I've said, there isn't enough water in the whole planet for that to work- water is not going to distort a huge, trillion ton lava-ball. In fact, if there actually was enough, the world would be underwater to the distance about 300,000,000 miles. Which it, rather patently, isn't.
Anyway, the crust is at least 4km thick, in some places over 20km, and half a dozen kilometers of rock is too tough to be bent out of shape by just water. You'd need some kind of SuperWater!
Is it a volcano? Is it continetal drift? No, it's Superwater, come to distort scenery, and reality, in one watery swoop!

1.Evolution is not rascists. Only if the outdated and unproven idea of 'parrallel evolution' is meant. An idea which can also be, and often is, applied to creationism.
All of Evolution is unproven, what's so special about "parallel evolution"? From quite a bit of what I've heard, racism fits right in -- sure, most people won't come out and describe it (hell, most people don't realize it's racist), but it's in there, alright. Even from what they teach in public schools.
Actually, creationism leaves more room for rascism than evolution. Besides, parallel evolution is hideously out of date, and has lost all credit as a sensible theory long ago. Anyway, just because something could be interpreated in a rascist fashion, does not change scientific fact. It's just some people getting things wrong.

2. There is a difference between 'faith' in the religous sense, and believing a scientific theory. Indeed, we can't definitely prove evolution, but we can't definitely prove anything. Including creationism. The idea that religous convictions and scientific beleifs are one and the same is insulting to both religion and science- they just aren't.
Religous beleifs are based on not knowing- they try to explain what science can't. They're not meant to explain what science can.
And since science can't yet explain how we got here, what is so wrong with a religious belief in the same subject? Faith is faith -- whether it's having faith that there is a god, or having faith that we evolved from lesser primates (and them, from multi-cellular organisms, from single-celled organisms, from "primordial ooze", whatever), or having faith that this world is not the Matrix. What you may think requires little faith -- say, Evolutionism, or the idea that we're not in the Matrix -- another may see it as a belief that requires just as much faith as theirs do/does.
Science can and does explain how we got here. Scientists don't have faith- they believe whatever seems most plausible, and makes the most sense. Faith, in the sense you use, has absolutely nothing to do with it.

3. Intelligent design is not a credible scientific theory. And, even if it were, that does not mean, under any circumstance, that creationism would be. They're not nessecarilly the same- intelligent design just means the idea of a higher, controlling power, and the theory of evolution can be beaten into shape, so that it fits in with this. Creationism, on the other hand, is over 6,000 years out of date, and makes no sense (if god only created Adam & Eve, where did the people of Nod come from?).
Again. Just because you haven't seen much evidence for Intelligent Design (because you haven't been fed it like you have Evolutionism, and of course you can't go research anything contradictory to your own preset beliefs) doesn't mean it's not a credible theory.

Adam lived 800 years, and had many more children than only Cain and Abel. It's extremely likely that Cain married one of his sisters. The laws forbidding "incest" weren't given for another two thousand years, and they wouldn't have had to worry about any of the genetic disorders we have today.
Actually, I went to a catholic school, and was fed a butt-load of creationist junk, but I didn't believe it, because it made no sense.
I never said 'How did Cain and Able breed?'. I'm not stupid. I have actually read the damn creation story. Besides, genetic flaws don't give a damn about the date, or if the 10 commanddments have been given yet- incest leads to freaky mutie kids, end of story. And what about my question- where did the people of Nod come from?
Oh, and Adam didn't live 800 years, No one has. Ever.

4. There is no real anti-evolutionary evidence. Most, if not all, evidence can only be found to support it, or is so inconclusive that it means nothing.
Again, wrong. There is plenty of evidence that goes against Evolutionism. And most of the evidence that can be interpreted(/manipulated) to support Evolutionism could just as easily (with a little more knowledge and background) be interpreted to support Creation. In fact, much of the evidence used to support Evolution has been discredited (can we say Nebraska Man?), and is still being used, as a precedent if nothing else.
Just because Jeff Holybob on the Zealot channel claims that Evolution is discredited, doens't mean every (or any) actual scientists do. Because they look at evidence. They think. They, slowly but surely, work things out. Besides, more creationist evidence has been disproved (can you say 'Round planet?' 'Earth orbits sun?' 'Neanderthals, homo habbilis, homo erectus, etc?'

5. People argued against the world being round- that wasn't in the bible. So, now they argue against evolution- as it is not in the bible. The bible is gradually losing all importance when it comes to explaining the physical universe.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is flat. The Bible includes nothing contradicting the idea that the world is round. That was the Catholic Church -- and let's face it, most Christians don't take pride in the Catholic Church. Whereas it does indeed have an alternate theory to Evolutionism.
Yep, you're right, the bible never says the world is flat, except at the beggining. In fact, it rather definitely says it is a tabernacle. That's a flat bottom, and a big curved sky.
And, as for your comments on the catholic church, catholics make up more than half of the world's Christian population -952 million catholics, but only 337 protestants, 162 Orthodox, 70 Anglicans, and 148 million from other churches. That's 952M out of 1669M. That's 57%.

What, 3,500,000,000 years? Sounds like a hell of a time to me... There was plenty of time for evoultion to take place. Plenty of time.
When it supposedly takes hundreds of millions of years for variations in geni to seperate, dozens of billions of years would have been needed to get anywhere close to the development of humans.
That statement makes less than no sense. You can't prove that. (After all, it's never happened, has it?) Besides, Earth's had a bit of a dangerous history, what with all the earthquakes and volcanos and ice-ages and so on, so there could have been some periods of 'accelerated evoultion', as it were.

I wasn't intolerant. I simply object to others stating un-proven and nonsesical ideas as facts.
...which is exactly what you're doing. A little hypocritical?
No. Evolutionism isn't nonsensical. The idea that a giant, all powerful being made the world in under a week, and made humans the all-powerful ruler (oh, actually, just men. Women are, of course, inferior to men in the bible, that's why they were created second, wasn't it?)
Besides, I'm perfectly tolerant. If you want to beleive pure weirdness, be my guest, just keep it to yourself.
Oh, and if you want to enter a serious, proper argument, you have to actually disprove your opponents claims, not just deny them.