Dammit, I had this thing nearly done, and screwed up, and now I have to do it all over again.
You're probably taking this way out of context. Some parts -- few -- of the Bible are meant to be taken more figuratively than literally. Like Revelations. Not Genesis, or the Gospel. Anybody who has studied the Bible, or been taught the Bible, knows this. Just because some parts are to be taken more figuratively than literally doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Nice try. And like I said, the Catholic Church doesn't speak for all of Christianity.Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Of course, except those scientists who believe Creationism. Can't forget them. But you, you know what you're talking about, so much moreso than those "dumb" scientists, right? No matter that they've been studying a subject for longer than you've been breathing.Well, many creationists do believe blindly. Many people also have blind beleif in evolutionism. But that's just normal, everyday people. Not scientists.
Yes, they'll say time to fossilize varies. But few will admit (until confronted with the proof, anyway -- and some not even then) that it's possible for something to fossilize in a few years. And no, it may not always take just a couple dozen years for something to become a fossil, but the fact that it has, many times, disproves the well-spread myth that it takes millions of years to do.Actually, any archaelogist/paeleontologist will say that the time taken for fossillisation differes depending on environment. Besides, proving that it can take just dozens of years, doesn't mean that it always does.
Just as you interpreted the Everest fossils so that they helped proved your idea. Hypocritical, maybe?[/QUOTE]Yes, you'll often find evidence interpreted in such a way as to fit one theory, if it can support another theory they're trying to prove. Just like polls and surveys can say anything the maker wants them to say, evidence can be interpreted many ways -- even manipulated to fit Evolutionism. As has been done, many times.
Actually, the fossils on Everest I mentioned can only be interpreted that way. The "reasoning" you try to use would be like finding a Ford Mustang in a garage built in 1920, and saying the entire thing was built just like you found it. The fossils on top of Everest are of things that Evolutionists say didn't exist at the time they could have gotten where they are -- when Everest was still underwater, there was no way those organisms could have fossilized, because they didn't exist. See how your logic is contradictory?
Completely smooth by what? Because water doesn't have the power to influence the shape of the crust, right?A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It deal with the whole subject, including the point that if it were not for plate tectonics, the whole earth would be worn completely smooth.
Alright, wrong on two parts here. Firstly, though the American pubic school system is nothing to be proud of (because it's run by our government), it certainly isn't "poor" or "hugely outdated". Of the three different school systems that tried to force-feed Evolutionism to me, in one, I was in a class of nearly 500 -- in the next, I made 60. Same material, new books, new "evidence". It doesn't really vary from teacher to teacher, school system to school system, state to state.Maybe you could blame the poor American school system and it's hugely outdated educational material. Besides, this is a moot point- if my theories rascist, so's your's. There's no real way round that.
Second. Evolutionism is racist in nature. Just because you listed one extremist on either side that interpreted Christianity/Creation and Evolutionism as racist doesn't mean Evolutionism isn't racist in a moderate view as well. That doesn't make Creation racist, because nowhere in Genesis does it say that one race or color of people is any better, smarter, or more advanced than any other. Which is not the case with Evolutionism.
Wrong again. If I'm confronted with real evidence -- by anybody, in any debate -- I actually consider it. What you've presented, however, is not real evidence, only manipulations and downright fabrications.Yep. You have. And plate tectonics, a theory which in no way contradicts creationism, despite your opinions. You just denie any eveidnce that I put forward.I haven't denied any logical "evidence" that supports Evolutionism. I've shown some to not be "evidence" at all, sure, but if it's there, I won't deny it. Whereas you've denied anything supporting my view.
Hell, you even called it "evidence". That's obvious denial.
You'll learn about genetics in high school, so I won't go too far in depth with this. Basically, as genes are passed from parent to offspring, sometimes things go wrong -- wires get crossed, genes get misspliced, etc. -- and often, those -- we'll call them "defects" -- often, those defects pass from the offspring to their offspring, and so on. There are hundreds of thousands of genetic disorders in the world today, all going back to one defect long, long ago -- everything from Downs Syndome to Anemia to, hell, male-pattern baldness and webbed toes.Cars are affected by wear and tear. The gentic structure is not .(Except from radiation, but that's really a different thing altogether- it tend to just kill, rather than cause wear and tear.)
Let me show you how you've just severely contradicted yourself with two consecutive statements. Here are the two arguments against this ... "logic".I don't see how. How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge.
And, as I've said before, when the creation story was written, the Israelites were nomadic animal-herders, and not exactly the most adavnced scientific thinkers. It made sense at the time, yeah. But that time was about five or six thousands years ago.
1.) "How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge" -- which means, according to you, "nomadic animal-herders" may very well know quite a bit about the creation of the world. Hell, they may have been the most technologically advanced civilization in the world at that time, or for centuries to come. Because just because they were "nomadic animal-herders" doesn't mean they didn't know about more than that, right?
2.) "How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge" -- Are you serious with this? Not only do you think you know more than those "dumb" scientists who believe Creation, but you think that studying something for ten, twenty, thirty years doesn't mean you know anything about it? I bet you know more about law than a career judge, and more about the military than a career soldier, and more about medicine than a career doctor, and more about architecture than a career engineer, huh? After all, just because they've done it all their life doesn't mean you don't know more than them about it.
I'm using dinosaurs that have been washed up on beaches. I'm using legends of interaction with creatures you say never co-existed with man. I'm using semi-accurate depictions of creatures which, according to you, nobody would have any idea what they looked like. I'm using depictions and stories from over a half-dozen cultures all over the world. But I guess you don't have any argument against it, so you'll attack it.Right. Now your using celtic folklore and meso-american mythology as evidence? Wooh... that's not gonna work....Some dinosaurs still exist today -- tribes with prettymuch no contact with the outside world, like in the Amazon or Congo, have stories of them. They've found plesiosaurs washed up on beaches. There are seven "Lochs" in Scotland -- all of them have reported similar sightings. Plus they've been sighted in Lake Champlain in New Hampshire, the Ogopogo in british Columbia, Isa in China, Usa in Japan, and in Bushman and Australian aboriginal rock-carvings. As well as in the Nazca stones. As well as Five-toed llama's painted on Teotihuacan pottery, even though they were supposedly extinct 5 million years ago, and paintings of the Archeopteryx, supposedly extinct about 170 million years ago, in Mayan temples.
You didn't get it. There were no animals in the Brizillian rainforest. They were created in Eden (not near Brazil), and they hadn't yet migrated. Don't worry, you'll get it someday.Err... Eden was in mesopotamia (the Tigris and Euphrates ran out of it, and they're in Iraq, and the Pishon runs into 'Cush', or Kush, modern Ethiopia). The animals of the Brazillian rainforest are nor within reasonable distance of there.
So instead of debating against them, all valid sources, you attack most of them and dismiss the rest. Nice.Well, there are a few decent ones, but they're mostly either gibberish or just plain wrong. They seem to think that self-assurance and logic are the same thing... (Not all, remember- some were alright, if misguided).Alright. Here we go. Evidence for Creation, and evidence against Evolutionism.
http://www.origins.org/articles/john...hofdarwin.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohl...ecreation.html
http://www.origins.org/mc/index.html
http://www.origins.org/menus/design.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=14
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx
http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php
The first and last, I'd recommend greatly.
Because I've researched Christianity and Evolutionism, as well as other religions, and I've come back to the one I have now. Evolutionism, believe it or not, was a big test of my faith, until I decided to research both sides of the issue and find out exactly why I believed what I believed, and whether or not I really should believe it. I've found the evidence to support my beliefs -- and I found it myself, I wasn't fed by some anti-religious textbook.OK, but one quesion:
Why the Bible?
WHat I mean by this is, why your particular religion? Why is it right? Because you beleive it? Why not Hinduism, or Taoism? Why not old Viking mythology? Frankly, most of them are as valid as Christian creationism.
Wrong again. It's based on what you already happened to believe -- that no supernatural being played a part in the creation of the universe and life. Since you've chosen to close your eyes to every other possibility, you think its "actually true" -- whereas most others would realize that it's only a theory, one possibility of many, and nowhere near proven true.That's why evolutionism is different- it isn't based on what you happened to believe- it's based on what's actually true.
