1 2
#587372
Eden
If you can look at some science with a bias for the bible being literal true (and a lot of fundies do) you can see that there is a LOT of evidence for a FLOOD in the world
Corrected for correctness
7/14/2008 8:52:12 PM
#587380
anonymous_troy
My Nothing.. It's full of ... strawmen!
7/14/2008 8:56:08 PM
#587394
szena
To say that we all came from rocks (or from Mars, whichever version of evolution you want to take)
Um, neither. I'll take the actual version over either strawman.
7/14/2008 9:00:42 PM
#587406
Ash
It's called radioactive decay dating. But I guess that's a bit too complicated for simpletons like this fundie.
7/14/2008 9:05:09 PM
#587412
Malkavian Jeff
"you can see that there is a LOT of evidence for a FLOOD in the world...."
Other religions tell stories of great floods (especially the ones before Christianity).
Watch Zeitgeist.
7/14/2008 9:07:31 PM
#587438
Horsefeathers
"Wow, someone else agrees with me.. that's a surprise."
I would imagine it would be when you hold ideas such as this.
"To say that we all came from rocks (or from Mars, whichever version of evolution you want to take) takes a great deal of faith to believe."
Nothing in evolutionary theory says any such thing.
"If you can look at some science objectively, without the bias (and very few people do) you can see that there is a LOT of evidence for a FLOOD in the world...."
Odd then that no geologist has ever found it. Not even the earliest geologists who were Christians and specifically went looking for evidence of your Flood.
"and the whole geographical column is nothing but circular reasoning.. you date the bones by the rock, and you date the rocks by the bones..."
No, you don't. Stop listening to Hovind.
"where is any science in that?"
Well, when you get the rocks back to the lab and date them using atomic theory, science comes into play. When you use knowledge of geology to understand the layering you see which indicates what age the rocks likely are, science comes into play. When the dating of the rocks on an atomic level is consistent with the geological dating, science comes into play.
"I have even heard of a scientist use the word MAGIC to describe how something came to earth.. because using the term MAGIC would fit his theory..."
Name this supposed "scientist" or is he one of the many anonymous "scientists" that are always polled by AiG?
"honestly, how credible is the guy if he resorts to that kind of logic and belief?"
Claiming "magic" is the foundation of religion.
7/14/2008 9:14:15 PM
#587449
aaa
Strawmen...
7/14/2008 9:20:50 PM
#587458
tracer
... "geographical" column?!
7/14/2008 9:25:33 PM
#587468
Kayu
To say that we all came from rocks...
Woah woah woah. What the fuck are you talking about?
7/14/2008 9:34:24 PM
#587480
dhillcrest
You date the bones by the rock????????????
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......................
........................................no.
You might like to try a bit of radioisotope dating there instead.
Oh fuck it,lets date the earth by looking at how old really old dudes were and the adding them up.
7/14/2008 9:43:49 PM
#587481
Quantum Mechanic
Post that without transistors, imbecile.
7/14/2008 9:43:52 PM
#587491
Osiris
Here's how rock dating works.
Okay so you find a rock layer. You determine how far down that rock layer goes, the further down it is the older it is, this is just simple logic. Then you use a bunch of different isotopes to date the rock, you do this multiple times. Eventually a pattern will emerge with one of the isotopes, it's dates will all be fairly consistent with each other. If other laboratories doing the same thing also come up with similar results you have found the age of the rock. After that you know which isotope to use in that rock layer, and any fossils coming from that layer will be dated with the same isotope. If the date of the rock and the date of the fossil using the same isotope are the same, or at least similar since isotope dating is hardly exact, you have pretty much confirmed the age of the rock and that fossil.
There are no assumptions or circular logic to be found in the actual method, not the creationist straw man method.
7/14/2008 9:50:42 PM
#587503
SeenAndNotSeen
I have even heard of a scientist use the word MAGIC to describe how something came to earth.. because using the term MAGIC would fit his theory... honestly, how credible is the guy if he resorts to that kind of logic and belief?
Was his name Kent Hovind?
7/14/2008 9:58:06 PM
#587541
JESUS PLEASE COME SOON!
Yarr, thar be strawmen abroad, as far as ye eyes can see.
7/14/2008 10:23:27 PM
#587550
hmcook87
I think i'm just going to sigh and move on.
*sigh*
*clicks post button*
7/14/2008 10:27:58 PM
#587565
Papabear
"IMO, All these scientific theories that scientists come up with are just as founded on faith with no evidence as any religions."
And that's why none of the bright people give a crap about your ever-so-humble opinion
7/14/2008 10:34:53 PM
#587581
shadow12615
Christians don't believe in isotopes.
7/14/2008 10:41:21 PM
#587617
Pyroclasm
Empirical evidence =/= Blind faith.
7/14/2008 10:56:44 PM
#587649
John
Magic will explain anything. That's why it's useless as an explanation.
you can see that there is a LOT of evidence for a FLOOD in the world.
Floods have occurred almost everywhere there is water. No one questions floods. What they question is the idea that there was one big flood as opposed to a lot of local little ones.
you date the bones by the rock, and you date the rocks by the bones
No. Neither can be dated by the other. When the geologic column was worked out by pre-Darwinian creationists they didn't know the dates. They just knew the relative timing: rocks with Ordovician fossils were always below those with Silurian fossils. The dating came later using radioactive isotopes. And the dating agreed with the fossils.
7/14/2008 11:28:21 PM
#587667
Old Viking
The evidence for the flood is in the same vault as the evidence for a young earth and the evidence for ID.
7/14/2008 11:41:47 PM
#587711
SpamViking
7/15/2008 12:20:11 AM
#587739
Eric
The Bible says we came from rocks (well, dust same thing). Evolution says no such thing.
7/15/2008 12:56:04 AM
#587798
Thirddrop
I want a geographical column too!
7/15/2008 1:50:51 AM
#587838
Snaxx
To say that we all came from rocks (or from Mars, whichever version of evolution you want to take) takes a great deal of faith to believe.
I believe in the Revised Dieudonné Evolutionary Theory, which is the only version of evolution that has been able to stand up to years of scientific scrutiny. According to Dieudonné's magnum opus, How we came to be - Our Evolution from Alien Waste, we all evolved from snack food that was discarded on Earth by the Galactic Cofederacy in an attempt to get the aliens to eat healthier. Evidence for it is much greater than for any of the other versions of evolution, ask any REAL scientist... I mean, look at your hand! Can't you see the obvious similarity between your fingers and the cheese fries they evolved from?
We even have a website if you want to learn THE TRUTH.
www.ievolvedfromsnackfood.com
The site has recently been having some server issues, so you might not be able to access it.
If you can look at some science objectively, without the bias (and very few people do) you can see that there is a LOT of evidence for a FLOOD in the world....
I totally agree with you there. I'll go even further and say that there is evidence for MANY floods.
and the whole geographical column is nothing but circular reasoning.. you date the bones by the rock, and you date the rocks by the bones... where is any science in that?
Radiometric dating?
I have even heard of a scientist use the word MAGIC to describe how something came to earth.. because using the term MAGIC would fit his theory... honestly, how credible is the guy if he resorts to that kind of logic and belief?
Not very credible at all... I probably wouldn't call the person a scientist, though.
7/15/2008 2:25:15 AM
#587849
Jay-Sus
7/15/2008 2:37:54 AM
1 2